LIBRARY    OF    THE    THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY 

PRINCETON,    N.    J. 

PRESENTED    BY 

REV.    FRED   A.    CRAITDALL 

Division. .^^...t^^  ^  ^ 
Section..' A J)./<^  ^ 


JAN   8   1915 

LIFE    OF    OUR    LORD 

UPON    THE    EARTH 


CONSIDERED  IN  ITS 


HISTORICAL,  CHRONOLOGICAL,  AND  GEOGRAPHICAL 
RELATIONS 


BY 

SAMUEL   J.  ANDREWS 

&.UTHOR  OF    ' '  god's  REVELATIONS  OF   HIMSELF  TO  MEN " 


A  NEW  ANT)  WHOLLY  REVISED  EDITION 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1900 


Copyright  1891,  by 
SAMUEL  J,  ANDREWS. 


w 


TO 


MY      Bli  OTHER, 


WILLIAM  WATSON   ANDREWS, 


GUIDE  OF  MY  EARLY 


AND      COMPANION      OF      MY      LATER      STUDIES, 


THIS   BOOK   IS 


affectionately  lRe=1In6cribeD. 


TABLE   OF   OON^TENTS. 


PAGE. 

Preface,        , ,        .  v. 

List  op  Authors  referred  to, xiii. 

Outline  Harmony  of  the  Gospels  and  Chronological  Index,  xxi. 

Chronological  Essay, 1 

a.  Date  of  Lord's  Birth, 1 

b.  Date  of  Lord's  Baptism, 21 

c.  Date  of  Lord's  Death 35 

LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD. 

Part  I.  —  From  Anaunciatioa  to  Zacharias  to  the  Baptism 
of  Jesus;  or  from  October,  748,  to  January,  780, 

6B.C.;  A.D.  27, 1 

Essay  on  the  Divisions  of  the  Lord's  Ministry,       .       125 

Part  II.  —  From  the  Baptism  of  Jesus  to  the  First  Passover 
of  His  Ministry;  or  from  January  to  April,  780; 
A.D.  27, 13d 

Part     III.  —  The  Judeean  Ministry;  or  from  April,  780,  to  April, 

781;  A.D.  27,  28, 167 

Part  IV.  —  From  the  Imprisonment  to  the  Death  of  John  the 
Baptist;    or  from  April.   781,  to  March,    782; 

A.D.  28,  29, 209 

Essay  on  the  Lord's  Ministry  in  Oalilee  to  tlie  Death 
of  the  Baptist. 

Part  V.  — From  the  Death  of  the  Baptist  to  the  final  depart- 
ure from  Galilee;  or  from  April  to  November, 

782;  A.D.  29, 817 

Essay  on  the  Lord's  Ministi^y  in  Oalilee  from  the 
Death  of  tlie  Baptist  till  its  close. 

Part     VI.  —  The  Last  Journey  from  Galilee,  and  the  Peroean 
Ministry  to  the  arrival  at  Bethany  ;  or  from  No- 
vember, 782,  to  April,  783;  A.D.  29,  30,     .         .       365 
Essay  on  the  Lord's  Last  Journey  from  Galilee. 

Part  VII. — From  the  arrival  at  Bethany  to  the  Resurrection; 
or  from  March  31st  (8th  Nisan),  to  April  9th 
(17th  Nisan),  783;  A.D.  30,  ....      421 

Part  VIII.  —From  the  Resurrection  to  the  Ascension;  or  from 
Sunday,  9th  April  (17th  Nisan),  to  Thursday 
May  18th,  783;  A.D.  30,      . 

Appendices, 

Index,      

Chronological  Index,      .        .        .        .        . 

Passages  of  Scripture  referred  to  in  the  History, 


589 
641 
645 
648 
650 


PEEFACE. 


This  book  was  published  in  1862.  That  it  has  con- 
tinued in  request  for  so  many  years,  shows  at  least 
that  it  meets  a  want  not  otherwise  adequately  met. 
jit  has  seemed  to  me,  therefore,  little  less  than  a  duty 
carefully  to  revise  it,  and  to  make  it,  so  far  as  I  am 
able  to  do,  more  worthy  of  the  favor  it  has  received. 

In  this  revision  the  character  of  the  book  has  not 
been  changed.  It  deals  with  the  life  of  the  Lord  on 
the  earth  in  its  chronological,  topographical,  and  his- 
torical relations  only.  As  was  said  in  the  original 
preface  :  "It  does  not  design  to  enter  into  any  questions 
respecting  the  authorship  of  the  Gospels,  the  time 
when  written,  or  their  relations  to  each  other.  Nor 
does  it  discuss  the  point  of  their  inspiration,  but  as- 
sumes that  they  are  genuine  historical  documents,  and 
true  statements  of  facts  ;  and  deals  with  them  as  such. 
Nor  does  it  attempt  to  explain  the  Lord's  discourses  or 
parables,  or  to  discuss  questions  of  mere  archaeology 
iOr  verbal  criticism."  Of  course  disputed  readings, 
when  bearing  on  the  special  objects  of  our  enquiries, 
have  been  considered,  and  for  comparison  with  the 
textus  receptus  the  text  of  Tischendorf  and  that  of 
Westcott  and  Hort  have  been  used,  with  occasional 
reference  to  the  readings  preferred  by  Meyer,  Alford, 
Keil,  and  others.  Whenever  the  translation  in  the 
Revised  Version  seemed  to  give  light,  it  has  been 

(V) 


VI  PREFACE, 

quoted.  No  reference  is  made  to  any  Greek  manu- 
scripts,  as  unnecessary  to  those  who  use  the  Greek 
Testament,  and  useless  to  those  who  do  not. 

I  am  not  at  all  confident  that  I  have  always  kept 
within  the  limits  which  my  purpose  prescribes.  The 
line  between  the  historical  and  the  archaeological  is 
not  always  plain,  and  doubtless  some  readers  will  seek 
here  information  which  properly  belongs  to  commen- 
taries and  Bible  dictionaries. 

The  last  thirty  years  have  added  much  to  our 
knowledge  of  the  Holy  Land,  especially  through  the 
explorations  of  the  Palestine  Explortition  Fund  Society 
and  the  English  Ordnance  Surveys.  Of  these  constant 
use  has  been  made.  But  it  remains  true  that  with  all 
the  recent  investigations,  the  sites  of  many  places 
mentioned  in  the  Gospels  are  almost  as  undetermined 
as  ever.  This  may  be  said  of  Bethabara,  Bethsaida, 
JEnon,  Capernaum,  Cana,  Emmaus,  Golgotha — all  are 
still  in  dispute.  If  those  who  have  made  the  topogra- 
phy of  the  Gospels  their  special  study  were  agreed  as 
to  results,  we  could  readily  accept  them  ;  but  as  the 
most  diligent  and  learned  explorers  differ,  we  are 
forced  to  take  to  our  help  the  statements  of  others 
more  or  less  coinpetent  —  geographers  and  travellers 
—  and  so  arrive  at  a  probable  conclusion.  Not  a  few 
may  think  some  of  the  topographical  discussions  un- 
necessarily long,  and  ask  of  what  real  importance  is 
it  whether  Capernaum  was  one  side  of  the  Sea  of 
Galilee  or  the  other,  whether  the  Lord  was  transfigured 
at  Tabor  or  at  Hermon  ?  Renan  asks  :  "  How  does  it 
concern  us  that  Jesus  was  born  in  such  or  such  a  vil- 
lage, that  he  had  such  or  such  ancestors,  that  he  suf- 
fered on  such  or  such  a  day  of  the  holy  week  ? "    We 


PREFACE.  Vll 

answer  that  these  particulars  are  not  unimportant  in 
the  life  of  Jesus,  for  they  prove  the  reality  of  His 
earthly  history.  Time  and  place  are  essential  parts  of 
the  great  fact  of  the  Incarnation.  The  Son  of  God, 
in  becoming  man,  must  be  born  at  a  certain  period  of 
the  world's  history,  in  a  certain  portion  of  its  territory, 
and  stand  in  well-defined  relations  to  certain  of  its 
inhabitants.  Such  limitations  belong  to  the  very  es- 
sense  of  His  humanity.  These  outward  facts  the 
Evangelists  do  not  overlook.  It  is  true  that  they  do 
not  enter  into  any  great  minuteness  of  detail.  Of  the 
external  events  of  the  Lord's  life  for  many  years  we 
know  very  little.  Yet  they  do  not  neglect  those  rela- 
tions of  time  and  place  which  are  necessary  to  con- 
vince us  of  the  reality  of  His  earthly  existence,  and  to 
give  us  a  distinct  picture  of  His  labors. 

Again,  if  the  elements  of  time  and  place  are 
stricken  from  the  Gospels,  the  Lord's  life  ceases  to  be 
a  truly  human  and  intelligible  one  ;  He  becomes  only 
a  wandering  Voice.  The  more  fully  we  know  the  out- 
ward circumstances  of  His  life,  and  His  relations  to 
those  around  him,  the  more  do  His  words  gain  in  sig- 
nificance, and  attest  His  discernment  and  wisdom. 
Thus  it  is  of  importance  to  know,  so  far  as  we  are 
able,  both  the  times  and  the  places  of  His  utterances  ; 
and  the  labor  spent  in  this  study  is  not  idle,  but  will 
yield  rich  reward. 

The  present  book  differs  from  the  original  in  put- 
ting the  longer  discussions  into  small  type.  This  is  a 
gain  as  to  space,  and  also  permits  those  who  are  not 
interested  in  them  to  pass  them  by.  In  this  I  have 
had  regard  to  those  —  Sunday-school  teachers  and 
others  who  are  intelligent  students  of  the  Gospels,  but 


Viu  PREFACE. 

not  scholars  —  who  wish  results  rather  than  processes. 
For  them,  what  is  said  in  the  headings  and  the  larger 
type  will  generally  suffice.  But  there  are  others,  edu- 
cated laymen  and  theological  students  —  perhaps  I 
may  venture  to  add  clergymen  —  who  wish  to  have 
some  full  statement  of  the  latest  phases  of  the  ques= 
tions  discussed,  and  references  to  the  chief  modern 
writers  upon  them ;  and  for  them  these  statements  are 
made.  They  are  not  exhaustive,  much  is  not  said  that 
might  have  been  said  ;  but  they  present  the  means  for 
inquirers  to  carry  their  investigations  further. 

In  regard  to  references  to  other  books  and  writers, 
a  few  words  may  be  said.  The  grounds  on  which  they 
are  made  are  these  :  To  enable  the  reader  to  verify 
the  statements  of  his  author ;  to  furnish  him  the 
means  of  further  pursuing  his  inquiries  ;  to  show  by 
enumeration  of  names  where  the  weight  of  authority 
lies ;  and  incidentally  to  indicate  if  any  writer  of  im- 
portance has  been  neglected.  We  may  err  here  either 
on  the  side  of  excess  or  defect ;  perhaps  many  will 
think  I  have  erred  in  the  former  way.  But  those  who 
know  how  much  time  is  wasted  in  hunting  for  pas- 
sages .  where  references  are  scanty,  will  pardon  me. 

I  think  it  right  for  me  to  say,  that  very  rarely  is 
any  reference  made  at  second-hand.  That  I  have  not 
always  hit  a  writer's  meaning  is  very  likely,  and  there 
will  certainly  be  some  mistakes,  clerical  or  other ;  but 
I  hope  that  in  general  the  references  will  be  found 
accurate.  That  I  refer  for  the  most  part  only  to  the 
more  recent  writers,  lies  in  the  purpose  of  the  book  to 
notice  the  latest  results  of  criticism  and  investiga- 
tion. Of  course,  some  notice  has  been  taken  of  the 
older  and  prominent  writers  in  this  department,  as 


PREFACE.  IX 

Lightfoot,  Lardner,  Reland,  but  the  list  of  books  added 
will  show  that  chief  attention  has  been  given  to  the 
most  recent  authors. 

Meyer  and  others  often  speak  disparagingly  of 
^'  harmonistic  expedients,"  and  of  forcing  the  differing 
narratives  of  the  Evangelists  into  harmony  with  one 
another.  But  is  there  any  consistent  history  which  is 
not  the  result  of  harmonistic  expedients  ?  The  dis- 
cordant statements  of  credible  but  independent  wit- 
nesses are  studied  and  compared,  that  from  them  a 
full  and  harmonious  record  may  be  made.  This  is 
true  also  in  its  measure  of  every  biography.  Why  is 
not  the  same  rule  to  be  applied  to  the  Gospels  ?  If 
there  are  found  in  them  statements  of  facts  directly 
contradictory,  truth  demands  that  we  frankly  ac- 
knowledge them  ;  but  if  discrepancies  only  are  found, 
it  is  perfectly  warrantable  that  we  attempt  to  recon- 
cile them  by  probable  suppositions. 

That  all  will  find  the  solutions  of  alleged  discrepan- 
cies and  contradictions  here  given  satisfactory,  is  not 
to  be  expected.  Nor  will  the  chronological  order,  or 
topographical  results,  be  received  by  all.  But  it  is  a 
great  point  gained,  to  be  able  to  see  just  what  the 
amount  of  the  discrepancy  or  contradiction,  if  it  really 
exists,  is.  Those  readers  who  have  been  accustomed 
to  hear,  through  skeptical  critics,  of  the  numerous 
errors  and  mistakes  of  the  Evangelists,  will  be  sur- 
prised to  learn  how  few  are  the  points  of  real  diffi- 
culty, and  how  often  these  are  exaggerated  by  the 
misunderstanding  of  the  critic  himself.  There  are  not 
a  few  commentators  who  adopt  the  rigid  literalism  of 
Osiander,  not  like  him  to  defend  the  credibility  of  the 
Gospel  narrative,  but  to  destroy  it. 


X  PHEFACE. 

There  are  certain  portions  of  the  Gospels  whose 
genuineness  is  questioned,  as  Mark  xvi.  9-20,  John 
xxi.  In  regard  to  the  first,  which  is  bracketed  by 
Westcott  and  Hort,  but  retained  in  the  Revised  Ver- 
sion, it  is  here  accepted  as  true,  but  as  possibly  added 
at  a  later  period.  It  is  marked  as  an  appendix.  In 
regard  to  the  second,  it  is  accepted  as  genuine.  The 
account  of  the  adulterous  woman,  John  vii.  53-viii. 
11,  is  bracketed  in  the  Revised  Version  (bracketed  also 
by  Westcott  and  Hort,  and  transposed).  Its  omission 
does  not  affect  the  general  narrative. 

I  repeat  what  was  said  in  the  early  Preface  :  "It 
will  not  be  expected  that  I  should  present,  upon  a  sub- 
ject discussed  for  so  many  centuries  by  the  best  minds 
of  the  Chureh,  anything  distinctively  new.  Still,  I 
trust  that  some  points  have  been  set  in  clearer  light, 
and  that  the  general  arrangement  will  facilitate  the 
inquiries  of  those  who  seek  to  know  as  much  as  is  pos- 
sible of  the  external  history  of  the  Lord's  works  and 
words,  that  they  may  the  better  penetrate  into  their 
spiritual  meaning.  I  have  given  considerable  promi- 
nence to  the  great  divisions  of  His  work,  first  in  Ju- 
daea, and  then  in  Galilee,  and  to  the  character  of  His 
last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  and  to  the  accounts  of  the 
resurrectiop  and  of  His  acts  after  it,  both  as  explain- 
ing some  peculiarities  in  the  synoptical  Gospels,  and 
as  showing  that  His  work  was  carried  on  under  true 
historic  conditions.  There  is  no  fact  more  important 
to  be  kept  clearly  in  mind  in  these  studies  than  this, 
that  Jesus  was  very  man  no  less  than  very  God. 
While  recognizing  the  supernatural  elements  in  the 
evangelic  narratives  wherever  they  exist,  we  are  not 
so  to  introduce  them  as  to  make  these  narratives  the 


PREFACE.  XI 

records  of  a  life  neither  human  nor  divine.  The  Lord, 
in  all  his  words  and  works,  in  His  conduct  toward  the 
Jews,  and  His  repeated  efforts  to  make  them  hear  and 
receive  Him,  acted  as  man,  under  those  laws  which 
God  at  the  beginning  established  to  guide  human 
action.  His  life  on  earth  was  in  the  highest  sense  a 
human  one,  and  it  is  this  fact  that  gives  us  the  key  to 
the  Gospels  as  real  historic  records." 

I  am  happy  here  to  acknowledge  my  obligations  to 
several  friends  who  have  taken  an  interest  in  this 
revision,  and  have  helped  me  in  various  ways  :  to 
Professor  E.  C.  Richardson,  former  Librarian  of  the 
Hartford  Theological  Seminary,  (now  of  Princeton.) 
for  the  free  use  of  its  books;  also  to  the  present  Libra- 
rian, Professor  A.  T.  Perry  —  himself  the  author  of  a 
Harmony  —  to  whom  I  owe  the  Synopsis  at  the  begin- 
ing  of  this  book;  and  to  Professor  A.  C.  Zenos  for 
corrections  of  proof.  To  my  old  friends,  Dr.  Samuel 
Hart  of  Trinity  College,  and  Professor  John  H.  Bar- 
bour of  the  Berkeley  Divinity  School,  I  am  indebted 
for  most  valuable  assistance,  not  only  in  the  read- 
ing of  the  proof,  and  in  critical  suggestions,  but  for 
some  original  contributions  which  are  acknowledged 
in  their  proper  places.  I  would  add  my  thanks  also 
to  my  younger  friends,  Mr.  E.  E.  Nourse  and  Mr.  C. 
Hazen,  theological  students,  for  their  aid ;  a  useful 
paper  by  Mr.  N.  will  be  found  in  the  Appendix. 
-  I  cannot  conclude  this  Preface  without  expressing 
my  hope  that  this  attempt  to  set  forth  the  main  events 
in  the  Lord's  life  on  earth  will  always  be  read  in  the 
light  of  the  great  fact  that  He  "  who  was  dead  is  alive 
again  forevermore."  His  life  on  earth  and  His  labors 
here  were  but  the  initial  stage  of  His  work  ;  and  if 


Xii  PREFACE. 

questions  arise  in  regard  to  them  which  we  are  not 
able  to  answer,  these  are  of  very  little  importance 
when  we  remember  that  He  IS.  In  Him,  as  the  Ever- 
living  One,  not  in  the  Gospel  records,  Christianity 
lives.  In  the  light  of  His  present  glory  how  trivial 
does  much  of  the  modern  Gospel  criticism  appear ! 
In  studying  His  earthly  life  we  have  always  need  to 
keep  in  mind  the  Apostle's  words :  "  Though  we 
have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  hence- 
forth know  we  Him  no  more."  Our  communion  is 
with  Him  as  the  immortal  and  glorified  Lord. 

Again,  after  so  many  years,  and  with  a  deeper  sense 
of  its  truth,  I  say  :  "  How  poor  and  unworthy  of  Him, 
the  external  aspects  of  whose  earthly  life  I  have  en- 
deavored in  some  points  to  portray,  my  labors  are, 
none  can  feel  more  deeply  than  myself.  I  can  only 
pray  that  His  blessing  —  the  blessing  that  changed 
the  water  into  wine  —  may  go  with  this  book,  and 
make  it,  in  some  measure,  useful  to  His  children." 

Hartford,  Conn.,  Aug.  1,  1891. 


PREFACE  TO  ME  VISED  EDITION 


Since  the  last  revision  of  this  book  several  lives  of 
Christ  have  appeared,  and  a  number  of  monographs 
and  articles  bearing  on  the  subjects  here  specially 
treated  of ;  I  have  therefore  added  these,  so  far  as 
known  to  me,  in  an  addendum  to  the  former  list  of 
authors  and  books,  mentioning  particularly  those  pre- 
senting anything  distinctively  new. 

With  the  development  of  the  modern  critical  meth- 
ods and  their  application  to  the  Gospels,  the  belief  in 
their  unity  has  been  much  affected  ;  and  the  diversity 
of  judgments  as  to  the  events  of  the  Lord' s  life  and 
their  order  largely  increased. 

Aside  from  questions  as  to  the  text  and  the  author- 
ship and  time  of  composition,  there  is  emphasized  by 
many  the  uncertainty  whether  we  have  the  Lord's 
words  as  He  spake  them  or  as  modified  by  the  Evan- 
gelists, thus  leaving  the  reader  to  put  into  the  Lord's 
mouth  what  he  thinks  He  might  or  ought  to  have 
said. 

The  absence  of  any  authoritative  standard  of  judg- 
ment, leaving  the  critic  free  to  bring  all  points,  even 
those  which  have  long  been  regarded  as  settled,  before 
his  bar,  and  to  reject  all  statements  which  do  not 
commend  themselves  to  him,  necessarily  leads  to  con- 


Xiv  PREFACE  TO   REVISED   EDITION. 

fusion,  and  often  to  contradictory  conclusions.  This 
is  seen  especially  in  the  field  of  chronology.  There  is 
no  agreement  as  to  the  length  of  the  Lord's  public 
ministry,  or  as  to  the  data  on  which  a  sure  judgment 
can  rest.  One  affirms  that  no  Gospel  follows  a  chrono- 
logical order;  another  selects  a  single  Gospel,  and  to 
its  order  all  the  rest  are  forced  to  conform ;  and  an- 
other finds  that  a  later  Evangelist  corrects  the  errors 
of  an  earlier.  Not  a  few  deny  that  it  is  possible  to 
harmonize  by  any  corrections  the  conflicting  state- 
ments. 

It  seems  to  be  accepted  as  a  postulate  of  much 
recent  criticism,  that  each  Evangelist,  not  being  crit- 
ically trained,  must  be  more  or  less  vrrong,  and  that 
it  is  the  business  of  the  critic  to  set  him  right. 

To  this  we  may  add  that  the  most  advanced  critics, 
denying  to  the  Lord  any  Divine  commission,  get  rid 
of  His  miracles,  and  reduce  His  words  to  their  mini- 
mum of  meaning. 

The  general  result  upon  the  reader  of  this  liberty 
to  pick  and  choose,  and  the  consequent  diversity  of 
judgments,  is  that  anything  like  certainty  as  to  many 
events  in  the  Lord's  life,  and  their  order,  is  unob- 
tainable; and  this  uncertainty  extends  also  to  His 
teachings.* 

Thus  the  New  Testament  becomes  like  the  vineyard 
of   the  prophet,    "  the  hedge   taken  away,   the  wall 

*  We  are  told  by  the  editors  of  the  "  Encyclopaedia  Biblica,"  now  in 
process  of  publication,  and  the  latest  representative  of  the  most  advanced 
criticism,  that  "  unfortunately  the  literary  and  historical  criticism  of  the 
New  Testament  is  by  no  means  so  far  advanced  as  that  of  the  Old  ;  for  a 
real  history  of  the  movement  of  religious  life  and  thought  in  the  New 
Testament  period  we  shall  have  to  wait.  As  we  are  unable  to  check  the 
evangelistic  statements,  we  can  treat  them  only  as  hypotheses."  All  the 
lives  of  Jesus  hitherto  written  are  thus  hypothetical ;  the  certainty  is  to 
come  with  the  era  of  "  philosophically  purified  thought," 


PREFACE   TO   KEVISED   EDITION.  XV 

broken  down,  so  that  all  who  pass  by  the  way  do 
pluck  her." 

A  single  remark  may  be  made  here.  It  is  obvious 
that  our  understanding  of  the  life  of  any  one— of  his 
words  and  works — must  be  conditioned  by  the  sphere 
of  that  life  and  its  purpose.  If  Jesus  was  the  Son  of 
God,  who  was  made  man  that  He  might  be  the  Saviour 
of  the  world.  His  life,  like  His  person,  must  have  had 
a  wholly  distinctive  character,  and  His  words  and 
works  must  be  interpreted  in  accordance  with  it. 

To  reduce  that  life  to  the  level  of  a  mere  human  life, 
makes  any  right  interpretation  of  it  impossible.  As 
His  person,  so  His  words  and  works  were  unique. 

In  reading  much  of  the  recent  criticism  the  Chris- 
tian believer  will  first  ask  as  to  the  belief  of  the  critic  ; 
for  if  the  critic  believes  Jesus  to  have  been  a  mere  man, 
even  if  prophetically  inspired,  his  standard  of  judg- 
ment as  regards  the  Gospel  records  must  be  far  unlike 
his  who  believes  Him  to  have  been  the  Incarnate  Son. 

Upon  all  who  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  the 
Virgin,  very  God  and  very  man,  now  exalted  to  the 
right  hand  of  the  Father,  and  having  all  power  in 
heaven  and  in  earth,  the  boldness  with  which  not  a 
few  critics  attack  the  truthfulness  of  the  Gospels,  and 
find  them  full  of  legends  and  mistakes,  will  produce 
little  effect.  They  will  read  the  past  in  the  light  of 
the  present,  the  earthly  in  the  light  of  the  heavenly, 
and  find  good  ground  for  belief  that  the  coming  years 
will  but  confirm  and  illumine  the  records  of  His 
earthly  life,  and  add  to  their  deep  significance. 

Several  of  the  more  recent  writers  upon  the  chro- 
nology of  the  public  ministry  of  the  Lord  reduce  the 
time  to  two  years  and  a  half.  This  is  done  by  making 
the  Judsean  ministry  of  very   brief  duration.      But 


XVi  PUEFACE  TO   EEVISED   EDITION. 

when  we  consider  the  great  importance  of  this  period 
of  National  trial,  ending  in  the  rejection  of  Him  as 
the  Messiah,  it  is  plain  that  it  demanded  a  consider- 
able interval  of  time  in  order  that  He  might  fully  tes- 
tify to  His  Messianic  claims,  and  that  the  rulers  and 
people  in  His  rejection  might  act  with  full  knowledge 
of  the  character  of  their  action. 

I  wish  to  add  my  thanks  to  Professor  E.  E.  Nourse, 
of  the  Hartford  Theological  Seminary,  for  his  valu- 
able aid. 

Hartford,  Conn. 
April  20,  1900. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORS  REFERRED  TO. 


In  the  first  edition  of  this  book  a  list  was  given  of  the  authoi-s 
referred  to,  and  the  titles  of  their  works.  To  the  original  list  I  add 
the  more  recent  writers,  indicating  them  by  an  asterisk.  I  have  for 
the  sake  of  brevity  referred  rather  to  names  than  to  titles,  except  in 
cases  of  two  or  more  books  by  the  same  writer,  when  the  titles  are 
given. 

*Abbott,  Lyman,  Jesus  of  Nazareth.     New  York,  1869. 

*Aldricii,  J.  K.,  The  Day  of  Our  Saviour's  Crucifixion.  Boston, 
1882. 

Alexander,  J.  A.,  Commentary  upon  Matthew  and  Mark.  New 
York.  1858-1861. 

Alford,  H.,  The  Greek  Testament,  vol.  I.,  containing  the  Four  Gos- 
pels.    New  York,  1859. 

Baedeker,  K.,  Palestine  and  Syria.    A  Handbook.    Leipzig,  1876. 

Barclay,  J.  T.,  City  of  the  Great  King.     Philadelphia,  1858. 

*Bartlett,  S.  C,  From  Egypt  to  Palestine.     New  York,  1879.       , 

*Baumlein,  W.,  Commentar  ii.  d.  Evangelium  des  Johannes.  Stutt- 
gart, 1863. 

Baumgarten,  M.,  Die  Geschichte  Jesu.     Braunschweig,  1859. 

♦Beecher,  H.  W.,  The  Life  of  Jesus,  the  Christ,     New  York,  1871. 

*Beyschlag,  W.,  Leben  Jesu.     Halle,  1887. 

Bleek,  F.,  Beitrage  zur  Evangelien  Kritik.     Berlin,  1846. 

"  Synoptische  Erkiarung  der  drei  ersten  Evangelien.     Leip- 

zig, 1862. 

Bloo.mfield,  S.  T.,  Greek  Testament  with  English  Notes.  Boston, 
1837. 

*BovET,  F.,  Egypt  and  Palestine.     Stuttgart,  1863.     Trans. 

Browne,  H.,  Ordo  Sseclorum.     London,  1844. 

BucHER,  J.,  Das  Leben  Jesu  Christi.     Stuttgart,  1859. 

*  "  Die  Chronologic   des  Neuen   Testamentes.     Augsburg, 

1865. 

*C  ASP  ART,  C.  E.,  Chronological  and  Geographical  Introduction  to  the 
Life  of  Christ.     Trans.     Edinburgh,  1876. 


Xviii  LIST   OF  AUTHORS  REFERRED  TO. 

Clinton,  Henry  F.,  Fasti  Romani.     Oxford,  1845-1850. 

*ConEN,  J  ,  Les  Deicides.     Paris,  1864. 

*CoLANi,  T.,  Jesus  Christ.     Strasbourg,  1864. 

*CoNDEii,  F.  R.  and  C.  R.,  Handbook  of  the  Bible.     London,  1882. 

♦CoNDER,  C.  R.,  Tent  Work  in  Palestine.     New  York,  1878. 

*Dawson,  J.  W.,  Egypt  and  Syria.     London,  1885. 

De  Costa,  I.,  The  Four  Witnesses.     New  York,  1855. 

*De   PresSense,    E.,    Jesus   Christ:    His  Times,   Life,    and   Work. 

Trans.     New  York,   1868. 
De  Saulcy,  Dead  Sea  and  Bible  Lands,  Trans.     London,  1854. 
♦Derenbourg,  J.,  Histoire  de  la  Palestine.     Paris,  1867. 
*DoLLiNGER,  J.  J.,  Christenthum  und  Kirche.     Regensburg,  1868. 

Ebrard,    J.    H.    A.,    Wissenschaftliche   Kritik    der   Evangelischen 

Geschichte.     Erlangen,  1850.     Dritte  Aufl age,  1868. 
♦Edersheim,  a.,  The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  5th  ed., 
New  York. 

*  "  The  Temple  and  its  Ministers.     American  Edition. 

*  "  Sketches  of  Jewish  Social  Life.  "  " 
Ellicott,  C.  J.,  Historical  Lectures  on  the  Life  of  Our  Lord.     Lon- 
don, 1860. 

EwALD,  H.,  Drei  ersten  Evangelien.     Gottingen,  1850. 

"  Die  Alterthiimer  des  Volkes  Israel.     Gottingen,   1854. 

"  Geschichte  Christus  und  seiner  Zeit.     Gottingen,  1857. 

Fairbairn,  p.,  Hermeneutical  Manual.     Philadelphia,  1859. 
*Farrar,  F.  W.,  The  Life  of  Christ.     Illustrated.     London,  1874. 
Friedlieb,  J.  H.,  Archiiologie  der  Leidensgeschichte.     Bonn,  1843. 
"  "       Geschichte    des   Lebens   Jesu   Christi.      Breslau, 

1855. 

*  "  "       Das  Leben  Jesu  Christi.     Miinster,  1887. 

*  "  "       Quatuor  Evangelia  Sacra  in  Harmoniam  Redacta. 

Ratisbon,  1869. 
Fuller,  J.  M.,  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels.     London,  1888. 

Gams,  Johannes  der  Taufer.     Tubingen,  1853, 

♦Gardiner,  F.,  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels.     Andover,  1885. 

*Geikie,  C,  Life  and  Words  of  Christ.     New  York,  1880. 

*GERLACn,  H.,  Die  Romischen  Statthalter  in  Syrien  und  Judoea. 
Berlin,  1865. 

*Grenvii,le,  H.,  Chronological  Synopsis  of  the  Four  Gospels.  Lon- 
don, 1866. 

Greenleaf,  S.,  Testimony  of  the  Evangelists.     Boston,  1846. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORS  REFERRED   TO.  XIX 

Greswell,  E.,  Dissertations  upon  the  Principles  of  an  Harmony  of 
the  Gospels.     Oxford,  1837. 
"  Harmouia  Evangelica.     1855. 

Hackett,  H.  B.,  Illustrations  of  Scripture.     Boston,  1857, 

*Hanna,  W.,  Life  of  Our  Lord.     New  York,  1873. 

*Hausratii,   a.,   Neutestamentliche   Zeitgeschichte.      Erster  Theil. 

Heidelberg,  1868. 
^Henderson,  A.,  Palestine.     Edinburgh. 

Hofmann,  R.,  Das  Leben  Jesu  nach  den  Apokryphen.     Leipzig,  1851. 
Hug,  J.  L.,  Introduction  to  New  Testament.     Trans.  Andover,  1836. 

Ideler,  C,  Handbuch  der  Mathematischen  und  Technischen  Chro- 
nologic.    Berlin,   1825-1826. 
•^Immer,  a.,  Hermeneutics.     Trans.     Andover,  1877. 
Itinera  Hierosolymitana,  Tobler  et  Molonier.    Geneva,  1879. 

Jarvis,  S.  F.,  a  Chronological  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the 

Church.     New  York,  1845. 
Jones,  J.,  Notes  on  Scripture.     Philadelphia,  1861. 

*Keim,  T.,  Jesu  von  Nazara.     Zurich,  1872. 
KiTTO,  J.,  Life  of  Our  Lord.     New  York,  1853. 
Krafft,  C.  H.  a..  Chronologic  und  Harmonie  der  vier  Evangelien. 
Erlangen,  1848. 

Lange,  J.  P.,  Leben  Jesu.     Heidelberg,  1847. 

*'  "      BibelWerk:  Matthaus,  Markus,  Johannes.    Bielefeld, 

1857-1860. 
"  "      Life    of  Christ.     Trans.     Edinburgh,    1872. 

■^Langen,  J.,  Die  letzten  Lebenstage  Jesu.     Freiburg,  1864. 

"  Das  Judenthum  in  Palastina  zur  Zeit  Christi.     1866. 

♦Laurent,  J.  M.,  Neutestamentliche  Studien.     Gotha,   1866. 
'^Lipsros,  R.  A.,  Die  Apokryphen  Apostelgeschichten.     Braunschwieg, 

1884. 
Lewin,  Thomas,  Jerusalem.     London,  1861. 
*    "  "        Fasti  Sacri.     London,  1865. 

*Lewis,  T.  H.,  The  Holy  Places  of  Jerusalem.     London,  1888. 
Lichtenstein,  F.  W.  J.,  Lebensgeschichte  des  Herrn.      Erlangen, 

1856. 
Lynch,  "W.  F.,  Exploration  of  the  Jordan  and  Dead  Sea.     Philadel 
phia,  1849. 

"McClellan,  J.  B.,  The  New  Testament,  vol.  I.      London,  1875. 


XX  LIST  OF  AUTHORS  REFERRED  TO. 

♦Merrill,  S.,  Galilee  in  Time  of  Christ.     1881. 

*  "  East  of  the  Jordan.     New  York,  1881. 
Messiah,  The.     London,  1861. 

Meyer,  H.  A.  W.,  Commentar.     Die  Evangelien.     Gottingen,  1855- 

1858. 
Mill,  "W.  H.,  The  Mythical  Interi)retation  of  the   Gospels.      Cam 

bridge,  1861. 
MiLMAN,  H.  H.,  History  of  Christianity.     New  York,  1841. 
MoRisoN,  J.  H.,  Notes  on  Matthew.     Boston,  1860. 
*MoRRisoN,  W.  D.,  The  Jews  under  Roman  Rule.    New  York,  1890. 
*MoMMSEN,  P.,  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire.     Trans.  1887. 

Neander,  a..  The  Life  of  Jesus  Christ.     Trans.     New  York,  1848. 
*Nebe,  a.,  Das  Leidensgeschichte.     Wiesbaden,  1881. 

*  "  Das  Auferstehungsgeschichte,  1881-1882. 
*Neubaijer,  a.,  La  Geographic  du  Talmud.     Paris,  1868. 
Newcome,  Bishop,  Harmony  of    the  Gospels,  edited  by  Robinson. 

Andover,   1834. 
*NoRRis,  J.  P.,  Key  to  the  Gospel  Narratives.     London,  1887. 
Norton,  A.,  Translation  of  the  Gospels  with  Notes.     Boston,  1856. 

Oosterzee,  J.  J.,  Bibel  Werk:  Lukas.     Bielefeld,  1859. 
Osborne,  H.  S.,  Palestine,  Past  and  Present.     Philadelphia,  1859. 
Owen,  J.  J.,   Commentaries  on  Matthew,  Mark,    and  Luke.     New 
York,  1858-1861. 

Patritius,  F.  X.,  De  Evangeliis :  Friburgi,  1853. 
Paulus,  H.  E.  G.,  Das  Leben  Jesu.     Heidelberg,  1828. 

"  "         Exegetisches    Haudbuch,    iiber    die    drei    ersten 

Evangelien.     Heidelberg,  1842. 
•"Perry,  A.  T.,  Harmony  of  the  Gospels.     Boston,  1890. 
Porter,  J.  L.,  Handbook  for  Syria  and  Palestine.     London,  1858. 
*PouND,  W.,  The  Story  of  the  Gospels,  vol.  IL     London,  1869. 
*Pieritz,  G.  ^\.,  The  Gospels  from  the  Rabbinical  Point  of  View. 
London,  1873. 

*QuANDT,  L.,   Chronologische-geographische   Beitrage.      Gutersloh, 
1872. 

Raumer,  Karl  yon,  Palastina.     Leipzig,  1850. 
RioGENHACii,  C.  J.,  Leben  Jesu.     Basel,  1858. 

Ritter,  Carl,  Die  Erdkunde  von  Asien.     Band  viii.   15er  u.  IGei 
Theile. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORS  REFERRED  TO.  XXI 

Robinson,  E.,  Biblical  Researches  in  Syria  and  Palestine.     Boston. 
1856.     3  vols. 
"  Harmony  of  the  Gospels.     Boston,  1845. 

*  "  Harmony   with   additional  Notes  by  M.   B.    Riddle. 

Boston,  1885. 

♦Salmon,  G.,  Historical  Introduction  to  the  Books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment.    London,  1886. 

*ScHAFF,  P.,  Through  Bible  Lands.     New  York,  1880. 

ScHAFFTER,  A.,  Der  achte  Lage  des  Heiligen  Grabes.       Berne,  1849. 

*ScHNECKENBURGER,  M.,  Vorlcsungen  tiber  Neutestamentliche  Zeit- 
geschichte.     Frankfurt  am  Main,  1862. 

*ScHURER,  E.,  The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Trans.      Edinburgh,   1890. 

Schwartz,  J.,  Geography  of  Palestine.     Philadelphia,  1850. 

♦SCRYMGEOUR,  W.,  Lessous  on  the  Life  of  Jesus.     Edinburgh,  1883. 

Sepp,  J.  N.,  Das  Leben  Jesu.     Regensburg,  1853-1862. 

*  "  Jerusalem  and  das  Heilige  Land.     Schaffhausen,  1863. 

*  "  Kritische  Beitrage  zum  Leben  Jesu.     Miinchen,  1890. 
*Sevin,  H.,  Chronologic  des  Lebens  Jesu.     Tubingen,  1874. 
Stanley,  A.  P.,  Sinai  and  Palestine.     New  York,  1857. 
*Stalker,  J.,  The  Life  of  Jesus  Christ.     Edinburgh,  1880. 
^Staffer,  E.,  Palestine  in  the  Time  of  Christ.     Trans.     New  York. 
^Steinmeyer,  F.  L.,  History  of  the  Passion  and  Resurrection  of  our 

Lord.     Trans.     1879. 
Stewart,  R.  W.,  Tent  and  Khan.     Edinburgh,  1857, 
Stier,  R.,  The  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus.     Trans.     Edinburgh,  1855. 
Strong,  James,  Greek  Harmony  of  the  Gospels.     New  York,  1854. 
Stroud,  W.,  Physical  Cause  of  the  Death  of  Christ.     London,  1847. 
"  Greek  Harmony  of  the  Gospels.     1853. 

Thiersch,  H.  W.  J.,  Versuch  fur  die  Kritik  N.  T.     Erlangen,  1845. 
Thilo,  J.  C,  Codex  Apocryphus,  vol.  I.     Leipsic,  1832. 
Tholuck,  Commentary  on  St.  John.     Trans.     Philadelphia,  1859. 
Thomson,  W.  M.,  Land  and  Book.     New  York,  1859. 

*  **  *'        The  Land  and  the   Book.     New  edition,  3  vols. 

New  York. 
TiscHENDORF,   C,  Synopsis  Evangelica.     Lipsiae,    1854.     New  Ed, 

1878. 
Tobler,  T.,  Bethlehem.     Gallen  u.  Berne,  1849. 

"         Golgotha.     Seine  Kirchen  u.  Kloster.     Berne,  1851. 
"         pie  Siloahquelle  u.  der  Oelberg.     St.  Gallen,  1852. 
"         Topographic  von  Jerusalem.     Berlin,  1853. 


Xxii  LIST  OF  AUTHORS  REFERRED   TO. 

ToBLER,  T.,  Denkbliitter  aus  Jerusalem.     Constanz,  1856. 

"  Dritte  Wanderung  nach  Palastina.     Gotha,  1859. 

TowNSEND,    G.,  The   New   Testament,    arranged   in   Historical   and 

Chronological  Order.     Revised  by  T.  W.  Coit.     Boston,  1837. 
*Trknch,  Archbishop,  Studies  in  the  Gospels.     New  York,  1867. 
*Tristram,  H.,  Bible  Places.     London,  1874. 

*  "  Land  of  Israel.     London. 

*UpnAM,  F.  W.,  The  Wise  Men.     New  York,  1871. 

*  "  Thoughts  on  the  Holy  Gospels.     New  York,  1881. 

Van  dek  Velde,  C.  W.  M.,  Journey  through  Syria  and  Palestine. 

Trans.  Edinburgh,  1854. 
"  "  **  Memoir  to  accompany  Map  of  the  Holy 

Land.     Gotha,  1858. 
*Van  Lennep,  H.,  Bible  Lands.    New  York,  1875. 
*Vallings,  J.  F.,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Divine  Man.     New  York. 
*Volkmar,  G.,  Jesus  Nazarenus:  Zurich,  1882. 
*ViGOUROUx,  F.,  Le  Nouveau  Testament.     Paris,  1890. 

*Weiss,  B.,  The  Life  of  Christ.     Trans.     Edinburgh,  1884. 

*"Weitbuecht,  G.,  Das  Leben  Jesu.     Stuttgart,  1881. 

"Westcott,  B.  F.,   Introduction   to  Study  of  the  Gospels.     London, 

1860. 
Wichelhaus,  J.,  Geschichte  des  Leidens  Jesu  Christi.     Halle,  1855. 
WiESELER,  K.,  Synopse  der  vier  Evangelien.     Hamburg,  1843. 

*  "  Beitriige   zur  richtigen  Wurdigung  der  Evangelien. 

Gotha,  1869. 
Williams,  G.,  The  Holy  City.     London,  1849. 
Williams,  I.,  Narrative  of  Our  Lord's  Nativity.     Loudon,  1844- 
Wilson,  J.,  Lands  of  the  Bible.     Edinburgh,  1847. 
Winer,  G.  B.,  Grammatik   des  Neutestamentlichen   Sprachidioms. 

Leipzig,  1855.     Trans.     Andover,  1889. 
*WooLSEY,  T.  D.,  Historical  Credibility  of  Luke  ii.  1-5.     New  Eng 
lander,  1869. 

*  "  Year  of  Christ's  Birth.     Bibliotheca  Sacra,  1870. 
Wright,  T.,  Early  Travels  in  Palestine.     London,  1848. 

*ZoECKLER,  O.,  The  Cross  of  Christ.     Trans.     London,  1877. 
*ZuMPT,  A.  W.,  Das  Geburtsjahr  Christi.     Leipzig,  1869. 

Frequent  references  are  made  to  the  valuable  articles  in  the 
Cyclopaedias  and  Bible  Dictionaries. 


LIST  OP  AUTHORS  REFERRED   TO.  XXIU 

Bncyklopadie  fiir  Protestantische  Theologie  und  Kirche,  von  Herzog, 

Hamburg,  1854-1862.     Nevie  Auflage,  Leipzig,  1877-1888. 
Kirchen  Lexicon,  oder  Encyklopadie  der  Katholische  Theologie,  vou 

Wetzer  und  Welte,  Friburg,  1847-1857. 
Realworterbuch  von  G.  W.  Winer,  Leipzig,  1847. 
Encyclopedia  des  Sciences  Religeuses.     Lichtenberger.     Paris,  1881. 
Real-Encyclopadie  fur  Bibel  und  Talmud.     J.  Hamburger,  1884. 
Bibel  Lexicon,  von  Schenkel.     1869-1875. 
Handworterbuch  des  Biblischen  Alterthums,  von  Riebm,  Bielefeld, 

1884. 
SchaflF-Herzog,  Encyclopaedia.     New  York.     1883. 
Cyclopaedia  of   Biblical,  Theological,  and  Ecclesiastical  Literature, 

McClintock  &  Strong.     New  York,  1874. 
Imperial  Bible  Diet.     Fairbairn.     London,  1866. 
Kitto's  Cyclopaedia,  edited  by  Alexander.       1862. 
Smith's  Diet,  of  the  Bible.     London,  1863. 

American  Revised  Ed.     Boston,  1879. 

Publications  of  the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund  : 
Recovery  of  Jerusalem.     New  York,  1871. 
Our  Work  in  Palestine.     New  York,  1873. 
Twenty-one  Years  Work  in  the  Holy  Land.     London,  1886. 
Quarterly  Statements,  1869-91. 
Survey  of  Western  Palestine,  1881-83. 

Bible  Educator,  edited  by  E.  H.  Plumptre. 

Picturesque  Palestine.     New  York,  1878-81. 

Zeitschrift  des  Deutschen  Palastina  Verein.     1879-1891. 

The  recent  Commentaries  of  Keil,  Godet,  Lindsay,  Milligan  and 
Moulton,  Westcott,  Luthardt,  Rice,  AVatkins,  Riddle,  Plumptre, 
Schaff,  Lutteroth;  and  Monographs  of  Schiirer,  Roth,  Rope, 
Rosch,  Miiller,  Payne,  Merrill,  Woolsey,  Stevens,  and  others. 


Most  of  the  abbreviations  of  names  and  titles  are  obvious.     We 
give  a  few  which  seem  to  need  explanation. 
Grimm's  Greek  Lexicon  translated  and  revised  by  Dr.  Thayer —  T.  G. 

Lex. 
Commentary  on  John,  by  Dr.  Milligan  and  Dr.  Moulton  —  M.  and  M. 
Greek  New  Testament,  by  Westcott  and  Hort  —  W.  and  H. 
Authorized  Version  —  A.  V. 
Revised  Version  —  R.  V. 


ADDENDUM 


Besant,  W.,  and  Palmer,  G.  H.,  Jerusalem,  fourth  edition,  en- 
larged.   1899. 

Briggs,  Charles,  Messiah  of  the  Gospels.     New  York,  1898. 

Butler's  Bible  Work,  vol.  V.,  New  Testament.     New  York,  1894. 

DiDON,  Eev.  Father,  Jesus  Christ.   From  the  French.   2  vols.,  Phila- 
delphia, 1897. 

FouARD,  Abbe  Constantine,  The  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.    From  the 
French.     London,  1890. 

FcLLERTON,  K.,  The  Critical  and  Chronological  Table  of  the  Gos- 
pels.    1898. 

Gilbert,  George  H.,  The  Student's  Life  of  Jesus.     Chicago,  1896. 

GoDET,  F.,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  2d  Part.     Trans. 

Hodge,  R.  M.,  Historical  Atlas  and  Chronology  of  the  Life  of  Jesus 
Christ.     Nashville,  1899. 

HoLTZMANN,  Neuetestamentliche  Zeitgeschichte.     Freiburg,  1895. 

Innes,  a.  T.,  The  Trial  of  Jesus  Christ.     Edinburgh,  1899. 

"Laysian"  (R.  Bird),  Jesus,  the  Carpenter  of  Nazareth.     London, 
1892. 

Mao  Coim,  T.,  The  Holy  Land  in  Geogi'aphy  and  History.     2  vols., 
1897. 

Mathews,  Shaler,  History  of  New  Testament  Times  in  Palestine. 
New  York,  1899. 

Phelps,  Elizabeth  S.,  The  Story  of  Jesus  Christ,     Boston,  1899. 

Ramsay,  William  M.,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem?    New  York, 
1898. 

Rheis,  Rush,  The  Life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,    New  York,  1900. 

RiQGS,  J.  S.,  A  History  of  the  Jewish  People;  Maccabaean  and  Ro- 
man Periods.     New  York,  1900. 

Rogers,  A.  K,,  Life  and  Teachings  of  Jesus,    New  York,  1895. 

Sanday,  W.,  Article,  Jesus  Christ,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary. 
New  York,  1899. 

Sell,  H.  T.,  Bible  Studies  by  Periods.     Part  V.     1899. 

Smith,  G.  A.,  Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land.     New  York, 
1895. 


XXvi  ADDENDUM. 

SociN,  A   (Baedeker,  Handbook  of  Palestine).     1898. 

Stalker,  J.,  The  Trial  and  Death  of  Jesus  Christ.    New  York,  1894. 

Staffer,  Edmund,  Life  of  Jesus,  3  parts.  From  the  French.  New 
York,  1896. 

Ste\'Ens,  W.  a.,  and  Burton,  E.  D.,  Harmony  of  the  Gospels  for 
Historical  Study.     Boston,  1894. 

Stewart,  R.  L.,  The  Land  of  Israel.     1899. 

Thomas,  Margaret,  Two  Years  in  Palestine  and  Syria.  London, 
1900. 

Turner,  C.  H.,  Article,  Chronology  of  the  New  Testament,  in  Has- 
tings' Bible  Dictionary.     New  York,  1899, 

Von  Soden,  Prof.,  Article,  Chronology  of  the  New  Testament,  in 
Encycloijsedia  Biblica.     London,  1899. 

Walker,  N.  L.,  Jesus  Christ  and  His  Surroundings.     1899. 

Wallace,  E.  S.,  Jerusalem  the  Holy.     New  York,  1898. 

Wright,  A.,  Some  New  Testament  Problems.     London,  1898, 

Zaiin,  T.,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  vol.  II.,  Excursus  2. 
Leipzig,  1899. 

Bible  Dictionaries. 

Davis,  J.  A.,  A  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.     Philadelphia,  1898. 

Encyclopaedia  Biblica.  Editors,  Cheyne  and  Black .  Vol.  I.  Lon- 
don, 1899. 

Hastings,  J.,  Bible  Dictionary,  vols.  I.  and  II.     New  York,  1899. 

Smith,  William,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  second  edition,  vol.  I. 
London,  1893. 

Baedeker's  Palestine  and  Syria.     1898, 

Periodicals. 

Biblical  World,  vol.  1890-1900. 

Expositor,  vol.  1890-1900. 

Quarterly  Statements,  vol.  1890-1899. 


mSTOEY 


The  book  of  Prof.  Ramsay,  "Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem?" 
deserves  special  mention  because  it  gives  a  new  datum  for  our  his- 
torical investigations. 

Prof.  Ramsay  affirms  that  Luke  in  his  statement  on  the  taxing, 
ii.  1-4,  was  acquainted  with  a   system  of  periodic  enrolments  in 


ADDENDUM.  XXVU 

Syria,  and  probably  in  the  East  generally,  and  was  not  speaking 
at  random.  A  very  brief  outline  of  Prof.  Eamsay's  discussion  will 
be  given  here. 

Prof.  Ramsay  translates  the  words,  Luke  ii.  2,  "  that  all  the 
world  should  be  taxed,"  to  mean  the  Roman  world,  including  tho 
dependent  kingdoms,  as  that  of  Herod.  The  later  clause,  "should 
be  taxed"  or  enrolled,  affirms  that  "Augustus  now  ordered  enrol- 
ments to  be  regularly  made,"  not  the  taking  of  a  single  census. 
Luke's  statement  will  therefore  read:  *'This  was  the  first  enrol- 
ment " — the  first  in  a  series  of  enrolments,  and  the  only  one  with 
which  he  was  here  concerned.  It  was  in  force  in  Syria,  and  was 
periodic.  This  first  census  he  distinguishes  from  that  in  Acts  v. 
37,  by  the  use  of  the  article  applied  to  the  last,  "  The  census,"  i.e., 
that  taken  about  7  A.  D.,  when  Judaea  had  become  part  of  the  prov- 
ince of  Syria,  and  which  was  to  serve  as  the  basis  of  taxation. 

The  light  cast  upon  this  matter  comes  from  Egypt  through  the 
discovery  that  periodic  enrolments  for  the  purpose  of  numbering 
the  people  were  made  under  the  Roman  rule.  "The  census  was 
carried  on  by  Roman  officials,  and  formed  part  of  the  Imperial  sys- 
tem of  administration."  The  same  Greek  term,  dnoypa(f)ri,  is  used 
in  the  Egyptian  documents.  Prof.  Ramsay  thinks  that  Augustus 
was  *'  the  originator  of  a  new  system  in  Egypt  of  periodic  enrol- 
ments by  households,  developing  some  previously  existing  system 
of  numbering  the  population."  This,  like  our  own  census,  is  to  be 
distinguished  from  an  enrolment  for  the  purpose  of  taxation,  such 
as  was  made  by  Quiriuius  7  A.  D.  Both  existed  in  Egypt,  but  only 
the  first,  the  enrolment  as  a  basis  for  the  enumeration  of  the  total 
population,  corresponds  to  that  mentioned  by  Luke,  and  such  an 
enumeration  was  general  throughout  the  Roman  Empire.  That  the 
cycle  of  enrolments  was  in  force  as  early  as  20  A.  D.,  is  shown  by 
the  recently  found  papyri. 

A  second  point  is  the  relation  of  the  taxing  to  Cyrenius  (Quiri- 
nius).  Luke  says,  "  It  was  first  made  when  Cyrenius  was  Governor 
of  Syria."  Here  Prof.  Ramsay  adds  little  to  our  knowledge.  His 
conclusion  is  that  he  was  twice  Governor  of  Syria,  the  second  term 
6-9  A.  D.,  and  under  him  at  this  time  was  the  taxing,  Acts  v.  37. 
Was  he  Governor  earlier?  He  was  administrator  of  Syria,  5-2  B.  C. 
But  in  what  capacity  ?  Not  as  administering  the  internal  and  civil 
affairs,  for  this  was  done  by  Saturninus  and  Varus,  7  B.  C,  but  as 
having  direction  of  foreign  affairs  and  command  of  the  armies. 
He  was  a  special  lieutenant  of  Augustus,  and  conducted  the  war 
against  the  Homonadenses  whilst  Varus  administrated  the  ordinary 
affairs.     Thus  at  the  time  of  the  first  enrolment  Varus  was  the 


XXviii  ADDENDUM. 

civil  governor  and  Quirinius  the  military  commander,  the  legatus 
Augusti  pro  prcEtore. 

But  the  question  arises  :  Would  Luke  speak  of  him  as  "  governing" 
Syria  if  his  office  was  that  of  military  commander?  Prof.  Eamsay 
thinks  he  would,  and  cites  some  historical  analogies.  Luke  might 
well  have  spoken  of  him  as  the  Egemon,  or  Governor. 

We  have  still  to  note  the  bearings  of  this  historical  investigation 
on  the  chronology  of  the  Lord's  life. 

The  enrolment  being  periodic,  having  a  cycle  of  fourteen  years ; 
He  was  born  when  the  first  enrolment  of  the  series  was  being  made 
in  Palestine  ;  another  followed  after  fourteen  years.  Prof.  Ramsay 
makes  the  first  periodic  year  to  be  that  of  9-8  B.C.,  the  actual 
enumeration  beginning  after  it  was  ended,  or  during  the  year  8-7 
B.  C.  But  this  first  enrolment  was  delayed  in  Herod's  kingdom,  and 
made  in  late  summer  of  7-6  B.  C.  The  Lord,  therefore,  was  born 
6  B.  C,  though  possibly  as  late  as  5  B.  0. 

His  ministry  began  at  the  age  of  thirty  in  the  latter  half  of  25 
A .  D.  The  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  is  to  be  counted  from  the  time 
that  he  became  the  colleague  of  Augustus,  11-12  A.  D. 

In  regard  to  birth  at  Bethlehem,  Prof.  Eamsay  says  :  "  To  go 
personally  to  the  enrolment  was  regarded  as  substantiating  a  claim 
to  a  true  Hebrew  origin  and  family."  The  "all"  of  Luke — "all 
went  to  be  taxed  " — means  all  true  Hebrews. 

The  time  of  the  enrolment  was  fixed  by  law,  and  he  concludes 
that  His  birth  was  between  August  and  October,  since  the  pasturing 
of  the  flocks  was  only  during  the  hot  season  and  not  in  the  winter. 

The  Trial  of  Jesus  Christ.  A  legal  monograph  by  A.  Taylor 
Innes,  Advocate,  Edinburgh,  1899. 

The  points  discussed  in  this  monograph  concern  the  relation  in 
which  the  two  trials  of  Jesus,  that  before  Caiaphas  and  that  before 
Pilate,  stood  to  one  another,  their  conformity  with  Hebrew  and 
Roman  law  respectively,  and  the  righteousness  of  each. 

Other  subordinate  questions  are  discussed :  whether  His  aiTest 
and  subsequent  examination  were  legal ;  whether  there  were  two 
trials,  one  before  Annas  and  one  later  before  Caiaphas ;  whether  the 
forms  of  Hebrew  and  Roman  law  were  observed  ;  and  whether  the 
Jews  had  power  to  put  to  death. 

His  judgment  as  to  the  Hebrew  trial  is  that  the  arrest  and  subse- 
quent examination,  and  the  sentence — a  sentence  which  described 
a  claim  to  be  the  Fulfiller  of  the  hope  of  Israel  as  blasphemy — had 
neither  the  form  nor  the  fairness  of  a  judicial  trial. 

There  is  no  reason  to  think  that  the  Council  missed  the  fact  that 


ADDENDUM.  XXIX 

Jesus  claimed  to  be  their  King,  though  they  deeply  misunderstood 
the  nature  of  His  kingdom. 

Of  the  trial  before  Pilate,  Mr.  Innes  says  :  "  "When  Pilate  sent 
Jesus  to  the  cross  it  was  as  claiming  to  be  a  King,  and  on  the  origi- 
nal charge  of  acting  adversus  majestatem  populi  Romani.  The  judg- 
ment was  legal,  though  the  unjust  judge  did  not  believe  in  it.  .  .  . 
The  claim  of  Jesus  was  truly  inconsistent  with  the  claim  of  the  State, 
which  Caesar  represented.  ...  In  both  trials  the  judges  were  un- 
just, and  the  trial  was  unfair  ;  yet  in  both  the  right  issue  was  sub- 
stantially raised .  .  .  .  Jesus  died  because  in  the  ecclesiastical  council 
He  claimed  to  be  the  Sou  of  God  and  the  Messiah  of  Israel,  and 
because  before  the  world-wide  Roman  tribunal  He  claimed  to  be 
Christ  the  King." 


CHRONOLOGY 


DATE  OF   lord's   BIKTH. 


7  or  6  B.  C.    Turner,  Sanday. 

6  or  5      "       Ramsay,  S.  Matthews. 

5  "       Didon,  Fouard,  Gilbert. 

4  "or  earlier.     Holtzmanu,  Von  Soden. 


DATE  OF  BAPTISM. 


25      A.  D. 

Ramsay. 

26-27    " 

Turner,  Sanday. 

27 

Didon,  Fouard,  Hodge. 

28-29    " 

Von  Soden. 

DATE  OF  LOBD'S  DEATH. 

29  A.  D.     Ramsay,  Wright,  S.  Matthews,  Sanday,  Gilbert. 

30  "        Didon,  Fouard,  Stapfer,  Von  Sodeo,  Hodge. 

DAY  OF  CRUCIFIXION. 

Friday,  14th  Nisan,  March  18th,  29  A.  D.     Wright,  Turner. 
Friday,  15th  Nisan,  April  7th,  30  A.  D.     Didon. 

Fouard  says  that  the  Lord  partook  of  the  i^aschal  supper  twenty- 
four  hours  before  the  legal  time,  or  on  the  13th  Nisan. 

Sanday  finds  a  contradiction  between  John  and  the  Synoptists 
which  he  cannot  now  explain  in  relation  to  the  paschal  meal,  and 
also  as  to  the  time  of  the  day  occupied  by  the  crucifixion. 


XXX  ADDENDUM. 


DURATION  OF  MINISTBT. 

1  year,  2  Passovers.     Von  Soden. 

2  years  aud  more,  3  Passovers,     Turner,  Sanday,  Wright,  Gilbert, 

S.  Matthews. 

3  years  and  more,  4  Passovers.     Didon,  Fouard,  Kamsay,  Hodge. 

DIVISIONS  OF  lord's  MINISTRY. 

Sanday.  Preliminary  period,  from  winter,  26  A.  D.,  to  a  little  after 
Passover,  27  A.  D.  1.  Active  period,  from  Pentecost,  27  A.D., 
to  Passover,  28  A.  D.  2.  Middle  period,  from  Passover  to 
Tabernacles,  28  A.  D.  3.  From  Tabernacles  to  Passover,  29 
A.  D.  4.  The  Messianic  crisis,  six  days  before  Passover,  29 
A.  D.,  to  Pentecost. 

DiDON.  1.  MiuistiT  in  Judsea,  from  baptism,  27  A.  D.,  to  John's 
imprisonment  early  in  28  A.  D.  2,  Galilasan  ministiy,  from 
Passover,  28  A.  D. ,  to  Tabernacles,  29  A.  D.  3.  Persean  minis- 
try, from  Tabernacles,  29  A.  D.,  to  last  Passover,  30  A.  D. 

Stevens  and  Burton.  1.  From  the  coming  of  the  Baptist  to  the 
cleansing  of  the  temple.  2.  Early  Judsean  ministry  to  the 
return  to  Galilee.  3.  Galiltean  ministry,  three  i)eriods  in :  a. 
To  the  choosing  of  the  twelve,  b.  To  the  withdrawal  into 
northern  Galilee,  c.  To  the  final  departure  for  Jerusalem.  4. 
Periean  ministry.      5.  Passion  week. 

Fouard.  1.  Judfean  ministry  from  baptism  to  the  imprisonment  of 
the  Baptist,  from  January  to  December,  A.  D.  27.  2.  Galilaean 
ministry,  to  feast  of  Dedication,  December,  29  A.  D.  3.  Peraean 
ministry,  from  Dedication  to  last  Passover,  30  A.  D.  Jesus  at 
Jerusalem,  Passovers,  28  and  29  A.  D. 

Gilbert.  Twelve  months  of  the  public  ministry  spent  in  Judtea  and 
Jerusalem  and  nine  in  Galilee.  The  Galilsean  ministry  divided 
into  two  parts. 


GEOGRAPHY 

As  to  the  places  mentioned  in  the  Lord's  life  little  new  can  be 
said,  and  the  same  want  of  agreement  already  noted  continues  to 
prevail. 
Bethphage  and  Bethany.     Schick,  Qt.  Statement,  W'ith  map,  April, 

1897. 
Bethabareh.     The  ford  opposite  Jericho,  so  Didon,  Fouard,  Stew- 
art;  "quite  uncertain,"  G  A.  Smith;  near  Bethshan,  MacCoun. 


ADDENDUM.  XXXI 

Bethsaida.  Two  of  this  name,  one  in  Galilee,  a  mile  north  of 
Khan  Minyeh,  so  Stewart,  Ewing,  Fouard,  Didon  ;  only  one, 
Bethsaida  Julias,  G.  A.  Smith,  Socin. 

Cana.  The  traditional  site,  Fouard,  Ewing,  Stewart,  MacCoun  ; 
undecided,  G.  A.  Smith. 

Gapebnaum.  Tell  Hum,  Didon;  Khan  Minyeh,  G.  A.  Smith;  un- 
decided, MacCoun. 

Ohobazin.     Tell  Hum,  G.  A.  Smith  ;  Ain  et  Tin,  Fouard. 

Decapolis.     See  G.  A.  Smith. 

Emmaus.  Kulonieh,  Fouard ;  Nicopolis  (Amwas),  Didon ;  Kubei- 
beh,  Socin  ;  Conder,  uncertain. 

Sychab.     El  Asker,  G.  A.  Smith,  MacCoun, 

THE   HOLY   SEPULCHRE. 

No  new  knowledge  as  to  the  course  of  the  second  wall  has  been 
gained  by  excavation,  but  the  recent  excavations  of  Dr.  Bliss  on 
the  southern  slopes  of  Mounts  Zion  and  Ophel  have  an  indirect 
bearing  on  the  site  of  the  Sepulchre.  He  has  found  that  the  south 
wall  of  the  city  was  placed  much  further  south  than  it  now  is,  and 
included  a  large  area  now  without  the  wall.  It  was  upon  these 
hills  stretching  down  into  the  valleys  of  Hiunom  and  Jehoshaphat 
that  the  city  was  first  built,  and  here  was  gathered  the  greater  part 
of  its  population.  It  was  not  till  the  population  overflowed  the 
north  wall  that  the  second  wall  was  built  northward,  and  this  took 
in  only  so  much  territory  as  then  needed  to  be  protected. 

The  points  in  question  are  as  to  the  dates  of  the  south  wall  of  Dr. 
Bliss,  and  of  the  second  wall.  If  the  south  wall  extended  so  far 
southward  when  the  second  wall  was  built,  as  his  excavations  show, 
it  was  not  necessary  that  this  last  wall  should  extend  far  to  the 
north.  It  was  intended  only  as  a  defence  to  those  living  northward 
of  the  original  north  wall — only  a  suburb.  It  may  therefore  well 
have  excluded  the  site  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre. 

It  is  said  by  Dr.  Bliss  (Quarterly  Statement,  1895):  "The  wall 
occupied  the  extreme  southern  position,  which  is  just  the  position 
of  our  wall.  Our  line  is  identical  with  that  of  the  Jewish  kings  and 
of  Herod,  for  in  their  various  epochs  the  city  obtained  its  maximum 
growth  on  the  south  ;  and  if  Hadrian's  wall  occupied  a  diflferent  line 
it  would  have  been  inside  rather  than  outside  this  line,  contracting 
not  enlarging  the  city."  With  this  wall  extending  so  far  southward, 
it  was  not  necessary  that  the  second  wall  should  extend  far  north, 
since  it  was  intended  only  as  a  defence  to  those  living  in  the  north- 
ern suburb.  The  site  of  the  present  Sepulchre  may,  therefore,  have 
been  without  this  second  wall,  and  the  course  of  this  wall  as  defen- 


XXXii  ADDENDUM. 

sive  have  been  determined  chiefly  by  the  natnre  of  the  ground. 
That  the  city  far  outgrew  the  second  wall  is  shown  by  the  later 
erection  of  the  third  wall  by  Agrippa  ;  but  though  a  large  population 
may  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion  have  lived  without  the  second 
wall,  the  site  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  may  also  have  been  without  it. 

The  objection  to  the  present  site,  drawn  from  the  small  ai'ea  of 
the  city,  is  thus  at  least  partially  set  aside. 

There  seems  to  be  an  increasing  number  who  accept  the  claims  of 
Skull  Hill — the  hill  beyond  the  Damascus  gate — to  be  the  place  of 
the  Lord's  crucifixion  and  of  His  Sepulchre,  though  no  new  evidence 
in  its  favor  has  been  presented.  So  Stewart,  MacCoun,  Wallace, 
Thurston  in  Journal  Bib.  Lit.,  1900.  Contra,  Quarterly  Eev.,  July, 
London,  1899. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  tomb  shown  there  is  not  the  garden 
Sepulchre. 


CHRONOLOGICAL    INDEX. 


XXXIU 


Tl      .ia(N     (Ti     CO 


<»  in  i-  <?»    :  T 

f  -  1-1  «D  OC  (TJ  (?< 


incoc 


(Noo-^   lO   CO o o •-" gi £- g; 
CD  in  in   o   ;o  I-  c-  £-  00  CO  00 


OS  CO  00  o  CJ  oo 
00C5  0JOOO 


S3  « 

I- 

•  c  a 
o  *  .2  8 
'■§  'm.2  5 

3  o  o'S 

■cTa  '"  ~ 


B5 


<u  :. 


5*^ 


o  oj 


a  .2  c  .t;  g  i  ^  i 


S.9 


■"  a 

3  eS 

=9  O  M 

1-1  -^  e) 


•-3  OJ  "o,'"'  o 

■■3  i3  ti  t-  o  ■>-' 

,  w  .r;  ^  3  3  3 

g  2  s  rt  «  g 


1)    n<"  oj  ^'-9 

t«      Q   Lri   ^   Q)  ' 


o     ,2 
O     g 


^n 


Oj  Q. 


s 

o 


?SS  K2J 

Ci05     lO^ 

00     c 

T 

■^ 

J,tH 

'- 

(T)  ,i. 

.^ 

:3  > 

Cr- 

TM  ^~ 

ci 

4,2 

.„ 

.-.^ 

l^ 

'V 

CO" 

■^ 

:= 

:= 

_> 

Oh 


into   coo 


M  ^ 


a_g 

■B  ^ 
O.S 

OS  o 

P3H 


a)  ^ 

"So. 
aspq 

11  «| 
0..-5   <p^ 


XXXIV 


HARMONY    OF    THE   GOSPELS. 


C*  «     I      I    COtT     I      I 

"  5i '-' -"J"  ■^  ■* 


35  H  «  c^  °  as 

«  O  3  OO  Sr^^ 
OOtEJ3»lOaj~ 

8.2  g  a  S.2  §  « 


Ci  O  Vt  QO  00  d  <»  {-       GO  cs 


o 
o 


01 


■'FT 


mm^ii    , 


I  I  I 

thXO, 


^cgg^^i,^ 


!• 

•    :■*« 

^=0  ^'^V.o  : 

;.ii 

.ys-q-s  : 

>0    OOrH  inxc 


1050 


10  IC  —     -    _    _    _ 

11  H  <N  TJ  OJ  ?J  S<  (N 


-        .         f^   J^   -3Q   - 


lO  O  ID  O  :D  i-  t-  r^  X  X  00  00 


O     2 


3     M      S    J3  =s 


^o     -M     :S    S-3 


&.a 


CXc3 


<:», 


fi-^ 


"^     o  a  _2  = 

o  S     .^^  a 
•Sill's  °  o'~ 


J3  a 

^  0) 

■§5 

CO  c    _ 
.  0)   O    fc- 

■l§ll 


a^_ 

in  3  i  c' 


J  ^  o  -a  «  a  to 
-  cd  -^  a.^  a_- 


.S  J-'C  o  —  3  u  r3  ss 


^  a 


a  a  2.'-  ~  =       3  n 


^^ta|5o 

^  o  ^  —  —  •5 

o'o'g  ^S  o  « 
t£  be  0)  ~  a.  M  S 


^r:  =s 


5  Ea.^B  o  Sa  3 

j3rtJOa3Qa^c;x3 
>^    l^i^6W|I!?5SS-JP^>^aMW«H5-a5i-3tBeLi 


S    S  S  03  >2  ^  s  i  i; ,~  v 


:  a  : 

ia' 

•  a  : 

•  fl 

F1 

•H 

<u  ; 

•  0-; 

a 

a  • 

^ 

ft  : 

a    . 

d 

<3 

a 

O  cu 

C 

-   ft 

i3—  - 

&.--.=  ;:   S    fti 

c 

z 

o 

c 

O 

;z;o 

^ 

OZO         O 

8(3 


'>>»^ 


CHRONOLOGICAL    INDEX. 


XXXV 


o<ao 

S4 


«?  <N  '.=  CC  O 


is     .^ CO 


CO  IC  «  !?!  ._  {_  -o  T* 


'■>'5.!^'.d.d'S 


'm  'm  'm  ' 

O  !-■  i-H  >-i  ■*  in  CJ  to  OD  t-  O  MP5 

o:  oaoososooooo  O  T-i  T-( 

oj CKTJ oj 0{ <N eo TO m CO  CO  coco 


•^ 

^ 

'.-OS 

« 

o5j 

'> 

.to  7s!jco  M 

1   CO 

g^ 

=^s-2s 

'>'> 

'> 

■>■>■>. ^.ii 

V 

f>^ 

d 

4; 

*^ 

TT  -rr 

IC 

!3  00 

^N    ^  '  ■< 

COT)- 

■* 

rS  -^-^ 

>< 

K  X 

M  M 

t<l 

S    ':  '■■ 

^ 

e  fro 

30.... 

31-44.. 
45-.52. . 

CO 

10 

^ 

24-30. 

31-87. 
.  1-10. 
.  11-12 
13-21 
.  22-26 

?? 
^ 

COOi'M 
.-KNCO 

fa     •    ■    •    ■ 

d  •?>"•> 

> 

>    >  >  >  >  > 

> 

v  .n  .a  .^  .a 

K 

'W     .... 

fci     •    •   •    • 

depa 

■13-21  ■.". 

22-33 . . 
34-36 . . 

?, 

4 

5 

29-31.... 
32-39... . 

1-4 

5-12.... 

i 

CO 

h 

10-13. . 
14-21.. 
22.  23. 
24-27.. 

c«    :>.i:> 

>  >  >  >  > 

p       .  Oi  M  M 

K 

K     M  M  M  M 

H 

\^  y,  y,  Vi  y,  \^  X 

¥3    T^  T-l  £- 0;  0  ITJ 

^ 

4J    CO 

CO  CO  CO  CO 

CO 

/.'. 

coc. 

CO  CO  CO 

CO 

CO 

CO  COM 

XXXVl 


HARMONY    OF   THE  GOSPELS. 


com 
M  pi 


to       ^^ 


I         I  V  «  .A  >        I   O*  1-1  rt     Ot        I 
Tl     (Jj  1-1  i-i  i-l  TO     .._•._;._;     .„•     TO 

t<     ><" '5 'R 'S 'S 'S 'S 'S  "S    '3     t«S 


■*SlOTdSTO     CO     S 

.£:.£;.£  >  >■■?  ■>  ■> 

M  M  ><  M  X  k     H     M 


=14 


lf5iO:05DOi^05TOt~050T-(T-iT-iC?TO-^»n     lO     t^OOO       tH 

?c)3CooQOaooooO'3DQOooaiOi050ic;05a:05    o    c^oio      o 

TOTOTOOTTOTOTOmmTOTOOTroTOroCOroTO     TO     TOTO'*        -"a" 


ooo  O-O  o 


«5  bus's  i:  ' 


c3  ^  K  -a  C  g  aj 


.» 


Q   i 


crt- 


^  o  c  «  g 

^  ^  .2  ^  ^  ^  "n  i-J 
I  .c  ^  x;  ^  ^  a 

O   3S  03  c3  cj  c3Ja 

E  ^  J2  ^  J2  t-  3^ 


£  fct 


L      ©     : 


CHRONOLOGICAL   INDEX. 


xxxvn 


:S«3 


7^ 

moo 


ST'? 

ti  M  M 


CO     I    i-H 


.a  .a  .d  ^  >4  M  M 
t-!  M  X  M  S^  M  M 


05  CO  eo 

C5     '-I     -r-t     tH  IN  03 

CO    V     «    in  O  t- 

_     1-1     tH     ,-1  Oi  (U 

■Ji  "i^  'R  "m  "><  'm 


ceo 

O  t- 
(NS* 


1-1  in 


i-HC<COCO-»< 

cc  00  CO  in  00 

i-ci-iOJCOCO 


1-1  (N  S<  CC*^ 

0}  O  CO  ODCO  ' 
1-1  <?»  <M  (>(  CO 


j^ss^i 


■^  CO  I 


tH   '  ■* 


"ICOTl* 


tHCO 


cp    o cocococo-^Tti -^"^ in ^cs o 


t-   00   c»   OS 05 OS o o  1-1  ^  1-1    -coco   in 

CO     CO     CO     CO  00  CO  ^  1^  ^  "2^  ^      •  ^  -^     ^ 


P^m  93  S 


XXXVlll 


HARMONY    OF    THE  GOSPELS. 


.  TO     •  TO     •  S  M 
I        -r-l    «  to   >l    rt 


t<  Hi  H    VI    X    >< 


>-;<    -I    (N 
30   CO   o 


2S5 


:-T  :, 


00  IN  -a 


'25  ;^  s  :sj 


■  !>1     •  K  t^  « 


.0301 
.TOT)'-' 


^r  :  :  -.ci^^ 

O         -11  CO-o; 


eBroS 


'I    I 


•  T-H        ■  ^        • 

:2   >'L: 


1    1,   1  T 

.  -^  (N  CO  » 
.  «  «  tH  131 


iOifl    o    to    ^ 
K  X      M      M      X 


•■S! 


■  in  to  o  to 


in  10 


fe     th'     CoS 


■?»  CO  s<  ^  ^ 

1-1 5«  »»._;._:  TO 


;>  >  >  > 
«  M  X  M 
y,     'A     X  >i 


>  >  > 
M  K  X  ' 
X  «  X  " 


to     O^rHCO'NTtltOOD-PtCtO'-i-COS     lO     OO     tO     (M 

-r    »nif:oGOGcooxico~C3c^c^cnoo    —      ■    "  ~ 


*05?OTaoci    io    co^rrt* 


_,      .,      -^05,.     . -.      -- 

W-  — ^.  *-— —      —     T-tT^H     tH     C^     (N     'TJWCOCOCOCO     ^      iAiCO 

Tf  rf  Tj"  T o  U3   iO   mm   10   io   io   in o io  10 10  o   »o   0100 


>-"«Ph 


_  O  01  ° 


o  °„" 


P-,3 


S  gj3_g 


32 


C3     ^ 


c  a) 

03    O 

1-5 -3  S 
CO 

?  S  S 


:  a> 


o  w*  o  t-  — . 


5  =  u  P 


o  c 
2  u  c 

—    'aj 


s  S--C  s:  3  > 


J  t.  r;  ^  Qj^  Q)  c  S 


?   g   (K   53,0   * 
^  "^  IJ  QJ  QJ 


(L)   O    SP 
IE   O   =3 

P^St^HE^H     H5     l-5^,     Q     1-5— n-Sl-sfcl-sPl 


QJ  OJ; 


5-2 


S  .5-52 

-  O  *-    CO 
—       O   o  " 

.2    &|2 


a   :s 

4)      >>_0 

3   x:  3' 


s   ,0 


CHRONOLOGICAL   INDEX, 


XXXIX 


■■r"m 


si 


^.d 


o  ?  g  S  S  o 


oT 
,  -  o)  !- 

:,  a)  j^H  p. « 

•S  '*^     .  03  o 

'a  '^.ti  & 
tjoS  t*  E^  ^ 

-  _,>  »^ 

^-^  t^       u 

g  ^  S  0-.2 

I  xj  S  *  to 

!w  «  3   3 
►<  >•  IK  crj 


s:5^ 

ia  >  m  ri  ''^ 


•^  SJ 


CCrH 

>'  > 


s'^ 


>  -sS 


3  3  o  o  mi^;  C  a,-kJ 

55  ^  q  p^;^  CD -^ -r:  S  .J  ij  9i  g  E;:; 


S5  '^oS'S  o£^^  S 


ji^-g-5 


p;S: 


1  o  g-g  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  §    o 


°  Si<=i  P  cj  53  C.3  =3  i:i.P.P.ftCl,Cl.ft5 
ajS^<u«  =  °^aj3=S=3=*=3=3c3c3^ 


«  s 

to  2 

3'^ 


LIST  OF  MAPS  AND  PLAE"S. 


Map  op  Palestine,  .,..,..  fctcingpage  1 
Map  of  Jerusalem,  ...,,..  facing  page  53 
Map  of  Political  Divisions  op  Palestine,  .  .  facing  page  142 
Map  op  N.  W.  Coast  of  the  Sea  op  Galilee,  ...  223 
Map  op  Sea  op  Galilee  and  the  Parts  op  Eastern  Galilee,  240 
Map  op  N.  E.  Part  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  .  .  .  297 
Map  op  the  Mount  of  Olives,        .        .       .        ;    facing  page  428 


E.Sandoz.del 


CHROl^OLOGIOAL  ESSAY. 


[In  the  following  essay  and  throughout  this  work  the  dates  are  given  ac- 
cording to  the  aera  beginning  with  the  building  of  Rome,  or  db  urbe  condita; 
more  briefly,  u.  c.  Reckoning  backward  from  Christ,  the  year  1  of  Rome 
corresinrnded  to  the  year  753  B.C.  The  year  of  Rome  corresponding  to  the 
year  1  of  the  Christian  aera  was  754.  Hence,  to  obtain  the  year  of  Rome  after 
Christ,  we  must  add  to  753  the  number  in  question:  thus  the  year  30  A.  D. 
would  correspond  to  753  +  30,  or  783.  If  we  would  obtain  the  year  of  Rome 
before  Christ,  we  must  subtract  the  number  in  question  from  754 :  thus,  if 
Herod  died  four  years  before  the  Christian  wra,  or  4  B.  C.,  754  —  4  would  give 
7.50  of  Rome.  Always,  if  not  expressly  stated  to  the  contrary,  the  year  of 
Rome  is  to  be  understood.] 


I.  DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  BIRTH. 

Datum  1. —  We  take  as  our  starting  point  in  this  inquiry  the  state- 
ment of  Matthew  (ii.  1-9)  that  Jesus  was  born  before  the  deatli  of 
Herod  the  Great.  We  must,  therefore,  iirst  ascertain  when  Herod 
died.  According  to  Josejihus,^  "he  died  the  fifth  day  after- he  had 
caused  Anti pater  to  l)e  slain,  having  reigned  since  lie  caused  Antigo- 
nus  to  be  slain,  thirty-four  years,  but  since  he  had  been  declared  Iving 
i)y  the  Romans,  thirty-seven."  He  was  so  declared  king  in  714. 
This  would  bring  his  death  in  the  year  from  1st  Nisan  750  to  1st 
Nisan  751,  according  to  Jewish  computation,  at  the  age  of  seventy. 

But  the  date  of  his  death  may  be  more  definitely  fixed.  Joscphus 
relates''  that  he  executed  the  insurgents,  Mattliias  and  liis  companions, 
on  the  night  of  an  eclipse  of  the  m  ")on.  This  eclipse  took  place,  as 
has  been  ascertained  by  astronomical  calculations,^  on  the  night  of 
the  12th  and  13th  March,  750;  yet  he  was  dead  before  the  5th  of 
April,  for  the  Passover  of  that  year  fell  upon  tlie  12th  April,  and 
Josephus  states*  that  before  this  feast  his  son  and  successor,  Archelaus, 
observed  the  usual  seven  days'  mourning  for  the  dead.     His  death 


'  Antiq.,  xvii.  8.  1.  ^Antiq.,  xvii.  6.  4. 

2  Ideler,  Handbuch  Chronologic,  ii.  391.        *  Antiq.,  svii.  8.  4. 

..^.  (1) 


2  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

must  therefore  be  placed  between  the  13th  March  and  4th  April, 
750.     We  may  take  the  1st  of  April  as  an  approximate  date.' 

How  long  before  Herod's  death  was  the  Lord  born  ?  The  Evan- 
gelists Matthew  and  Luke  relate  certain  events  that  occurred  between 
His  birth  and  Herod's  death,  —  His  circumcision  upon  the  eighth  day, 
the  presentation  at  the  Temple  on  the  fortieth,  the  visit  of  the  Magi, 
the  flight  into  Egypt,  the  murder  of  the  Innocents.  Whatever  view 
may  be  taken  as  to  the  order  of  these  events,  they  can  scarcely  have 
occupied  less  than  two  months.  This  would  bring  His  birth  into 
January,  or  February  at  latest,  750. 

Datum  2. —  Having  thus  reached  a  fixed  period  in  one  direction, 
and  ascertained  that  His  birth  cannot  be  placed  later  than  the  begin- 
ning of  750,  let  us  consider  the  data  that  limit  the  period  upon  the 
other  side.  And  the  first  of  these  we  find  in  the  statement  of  Luke 
(ii.  1-6)  that  He  was  born  after  the  edict  of  Augustus  that  all  the 
world  should  be  taxed.  In  obedience  to  this  edict  His  parents  went 
to  Bethlehem  to  be  taxed,  and  there  He  was  born. 

Let  us  inquire  what  chronological  aid  this  statement  gives  us. 
Two  questions  may  be  asked :  When  did  this  decree  go  forth  ? 
When  did  it  go  into  eff"ect  in  Judaea  ?  We  here  pass  by  the  many 
historical  points  connected  with  this  edict  and  its  execution,  as  these 
will  be  examined  later. 

1.  When  did  this  decree  go  forth  ?  It  is  known  from  Suetonius 
and  from  the  Ancyranian  monument  that  Augustus  three  times 
instituted  a  census,  in  736,  746,  and  767.  Of  these,  the  second  only 
needs  to  be  considered. '^  Is  this  to  be  identified  with  that  in  Luke  ? 
Do  the  two  stand  in  any  known  relation  to  each  other  ?  It  would 
seem  not,  since  that  in  Luke  embraced  the  whole  empire,  and  the 
census  of  746,  as  also  those  of  736  and  767,  was  confined  to  the 
Italians  or  Romans,  and  seems  not  to  have  extended  to  the  provinces, 
and  thus  was  a  census  civium  (Usher,  x.  458;  Greswell,  i.  536,  and 
423;  Zumpt,  Sevin).  Woolsey  says  (Bib.  Sacra,  1870,  p.  397): 
"There  is  no  evidence  that  these  censuses  extended  beyond  Italy,  or 
included  any  beside  Roman  citizens."  (This,  however,  is  doubted  by 
many, — Browne,  45;  Friedlieb,  53;  Sepp,  i.  141.  See  Ewald, 
V.  141.)  All  we  can  say  is,  that  this  census  in  746  was  about  the  same 
time  as  the  taxing  in  Luke,  but  cannot  be  identified  with  it,  and, 
therefore,  gives  in  this  inquiry  no  definite  chronological  datum,' 

*  Almost  all  chronologists  agree  in  putting  Herod's  death  in  750.  So  Browne,  Sepp, 
Wieseler,  Ammer,  Ewald,  Winer,  Meyer,  Sevin,  Schdrer,  Zumpt,  Woolsey,  Keim;  749, 
Jar^is;  750  or  751,  Clinton;  751,  Greswell,  Pound,  Quandt;  752,  Caspari. 

■■'  Zmnpt  (209)  accepts  the  year  727  as  that  in  which  this  decree  went  forth,  and  its 
execution  as  beginning  in  the  provinces  in  744. 

5  As  to  these  censuses  all  falling  on  Sabbatic  yeare,  eee  Caspari,  37;  also  Quandt,  7, 


DATE   OF  THE  LORD  S  BIRTH.  3 

In  this  matter  we  have  no  help  from  contemporary  historians, 
since  none  mention  the  decree.  Nor  do  we  gain  much  help  from 
Luke's  statement  that  the  decree  went  out  "  in  those  days."  Strictly 
construed,  this  must  be  understood  of  the  time  embracing  the  events 
related  in  his  first  chapter  — a  period  of  a  year  and  a  half  or  two 
years.  But  the  phrase  is  often  taken  in  a  larger  sense  (Matt.  ii.  1 ; 
Acts  V.  36),  and  may  be  understood  as  equivalent  to  "  about  this  time." 
Assuming  it  to  have  been  a  general  census,  we  have,  therefore,  no 
certain  knowledge  how  long  the  interval  was  before  it  was  carried 
into  effect  in  Judaea. 

2.  Can  it  be  ascertained  from  any  data  when  this  edict  went  into 
effect  in  Judaea  ?  If  so,  it  must  be  through  those  who  executed  it  — 
the  governors  of  Syria  —  by  knowing  the  times  of  their  administrations. 
And  here  we  have  two  sources  of  information,  St.  Luke  and  Tertullian; 
let  us  examine  the  statement  of  Tertullian  first.  According  to  him 
(Adv.  Marc.  iv.  19,  about  207  A.  D.),  the  census  at  the  birth  of  Christ 
was  taken  by  Sentius  Saturniuus.  8ed  et  census  constat  actos  sub 
Augicsto  tunc  in  Judcea  per  Sent.  Saturninum,  apud  quos  genus  ejus 
inquirere  potestis. 

But  has  this  statement  any  historical  value  ?  Some  have  ques- 
tioned it,  but  it  is  received  by  many  modern  scholars  (Zumpt,  Lewin, 
Friedlieb,  Browne,  McClellau).  Woolsey  says:  "This  information 
is  historical,  and  justly  regarded  by  the  best  scholars  as  of  the 
highest  importance." 

When,  then,  was  Saturninus  governor  ?  He  is  often  mentioned 
by  Josephus  (Antiq.,  xvi.  10.  8;  xvi.  11.  3;  xvii.  1.  1.  War,  i.  27.  2; 
i.  29.  3).  There  is  general  agreement  that  his  administration  ended 
in  the  summer  of  748,  when  he  was  succeeded  by  Varus  (Greswell,  in 
750);  but  there  is  difference  of  opinion  as  to  its  beginning, —  most  say, 
in  746  (so  Ideler,  Sevin;  Zumpt,  in  745).  If  we  accept  Tertullian's 
statement,  the  execution  of  the  decree  must  have  been  begun  by 
Saturninus  before  the  end  of  748.  We  may  suppose  the  following 
order  of  events.  Early  in  his  governorship,  746-748,  Saturninus  is 
directed  by  the  Emperor  to  carry  out  the  decree  in  Judaea,  and  this 
he  did,  or  began  to  do.  If  the  enrollment  (Luke  ii.  31)  was  by  him, 
the  Lord  was  born  in  747  or  748 ;  and  each  of  these  dates  is  accepted 
by  many.  (For  747  Ideler,  Jarvis,  Sepp,  Patritius,  Alford ;  for  748 
Kepler,  Lewin.) 

But  if  the  execution  of  the  edict  was  only  begun  and  not  com- 
pleted under  Saturninus,  the  Lord  may  have  been  born  under  his 
successor,  Varus,  — the  governor  from  the  summer  of  748  to  the  sum- 
mer of  750.     As  he  was  governor  at  the  death  of  Herod  in  April, 


4  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

750,  the  Lord,  if  not  born  under  Saturninus,  746-748,  was  certainly 
born  under  Varus,  and  probably  in  749. 

We  now  turn  to  the  statement  of  Luke  (ii.  2),  "This  taxing  was 
first  made  when  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria."  This  statement  is 
susceptible  of  various  interpretations,  which  will  be  hereafter  ex- 
amined. But  it  is  to  be  noted  that  it  does  not  say  that  the  Lord  was 
born  during  his  governorsliip ;  only  that  the  decree  was  executed,  or 
was  in  process  of  execution,  at  the  time  of  His  birth.  Cyrenius 
or  Quirinius  (K.  V.),  if  he  were  twice  governor,  probably  succeeded 
Varus  in  the  summer  of  750,  and  certainly  after  Herod's  death, 
and  therefore  after  the  Lord's  birth.  Our  knowledge  of  the  length 
of  his  administration,  supposing  him  to  have  followed  Varus  as 
go^'ernor,  gives  us  no  help  in  our  chronological  inquiry.  The  point 
whether  Saturninus  and  Quirinius  may  not  have  been  commissioners 
extraordinary,  or  Saturninus  governor  and  Quirinius  such  commis- 
sioner, and  both  have  conducted  the  census,  will  be  considered  later. 

From  Tertullian,  then,  we  learn  only  that  the  Lord  was  born  sub- 
sequent to  the  year  746.  From  Luke  we  can  draw  no  chronological 
conclusion,  since  tlie  relation  of  Quirinius  to  the  first  stage  of  the 
execution  of  the  decree  is  uncertain. 

Datum  3. —  The  statement  of  Luke  (iii.  23),  "AndtJesus  Himself 
began  to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age,"  is  rendered  in  the  R.  V. 
"And  Jesus  Himself,  when  He  began  to  teach,  was  about  thirty  years 
of  age. "  Most  modern  scholars  accept  the  latter  rendering.  (Wieseler, 
Beitrage,  165,  "He  was  in  the  beginning  " — i.  e.,  the  time  immediately 
after  His  baptism —  "about  thirty  years  old.")  It  is  said  by  Godet: 
"The  expression  'He  began'  can  only  refer  in  this  passage  to  the 
entrance  of  Jesus  upon  His  Messianic  work."  And  Woolsey  says: 
"This  explanation  is  far  preferable  to  any  other." 

If  rendered  "  He  began  to  be  about  thirty,"  it  must  be  understood 
as  saying  that  He  was  about,  but  not  quite,  tliirty.  (So  Lightfoot, 
Greswell,  Bloomfield.)  -Greswell  affirms  that  this  was  the  universal 
interpretation  of  the  words  by  the  Greek  fathers.  (But  see  Patritius,  iii. 
388 ;  as  to  tlie  chronological  conclusions  drawn  by  them,  see  Zumpt,243.) 

Taking  the  meaning  to  be  "Jesus  was  about  thirty  wLen  He 
began  His  ministry,"  and  we  may  count  His  baptism  as  its  beginning, 
we  ask.  How  great  latitude  shall  be  given  to  the  expression  "about 
thirty  "  ?  According  to  some,  it  is  to  be  understood  as  a  round  or 
indefinite  number,  embracing  any  age  between  twenty-five  and  thirty- 
five.  But  when  we  consider  how  short  was  the  Lord's  ministry,  this 
is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable.  According  to  others,  it  permits 
a  latitude  of  two  or  three  years.     (So  Ammer,  Alford,  Sevin.     Browne 


DATE   OF   THE   LORD  S   BIRTH.  5 

says,  "  any  age  between  twenty-six  and  thirty -two  " ;  Keil,  "He  may 
have  been  thirty -two " ;  Lewiu,  "age  thirty-three  and  u])\vards."j 
But  even  the  latitude  of  a  year  is  hardly  justified  by  Luke's  use  of 
language.'  The  more  natural  construction  is  that  the  Lord  was  somt 
months  or  part  of  a  year  more  or  less  than  thirty.  (So  Meyer,  Alford, 
Norton,  DeWette,  Wies.,  Tisch.,  Rob.  Edersheim  says,  "either  a 
little  more  or  a  little  less  than  that  exact  number.  He  was  not  just 
thirty,  nor  twenty-nine,  nor  thirty-one.")  Still  it  cannot  be  positively 
atiirmed  that  the  Evangelist  does  not  use  it  in  a  larger  sense. 

The  argument  that  He  was  thirty  at  this  time,  because  the  priests 
at  this  age  began  their  ministry, 2  has  little  force.  The  law  (Num.  iv. 
3)  has  reference  only  to  Levites,  and  the  age  when  the  priests  began 
to  serve  is  not  known.'  Besides,  Jesus  was  not  a  priest,  although  the 
Baptist  was. 

Datum  Jf..  —  If  we  assume  that  the  Lord  was  about  thirty  at  the 
beginning  of  His  ministry,  we  must,  to  make  this  datum  useful  in  our 
present  inquiry,  ascertain  in  what  year  this  ministry  began.  This,  it 
is  said^  we  are  able  to  do  through  the  words  spoken  by  the  Jews  at 
Jerusalem  in  reply  to  His  parable  respecting  the  temple  of  His  body 
(John  ii.  20):  "Then  said  the  Jews,  Forty  and  six  years  was  this 
temple  in  building,  and  wilt  thou  rear  it  up  in  three  days?  "  (So  R.  V. 
By  some,  as  by  Lightf oot,  it  is  rendered  ' '  Forty  and  six  years  hath 
this  temple  been  in  building."  So  Gres.,  Norton,  Bloom.)  This  im- 
plies that  it  was  not  at  this  date  completed ;  and  we  know  from  other 
sources  that  it  was  not;  this  building,  or  rather  rebuilding,  of  the 
temple  being  begun  by  Herod  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign,  or 
during  the  year  from  Nisan  734  to  Nisan  735.  (Jos.,  Antiq.,  xv.  11.  1.) 
The  forty-sixth  year  following  was  from  Nisan  780  to  Nisan  781. 
But  from  what  point  of  time  are  the  forty-six  years  to  be  reckoned? 
Up  to  this  time,  to  the  Passover  when  the  words  were  spoken,  the 
work  of  rebuilding,  which  began  in  the  autumn,  had  continued,  and 
was  not  yet  ended.  But  is  the  forty-sixth  year  to  be  taken  as  current, 
or  as  completed?  If  the  latter,  the  Passover  was  that  of  781.  (So 
Wieseler,  Meyer,  Weiss,  Tisch.,  Schiirer,  Lange,  Godet.)  If  the 
former,  it  was  that  of  780.  (So  Lardner,  Licht.,  Friedlieb,  Edersheim, 
McClellan,  Woolsey.  The  temple  was  finished  later  under  Agrippa. 
(Jos.,  Antiq.,  xx.  9.  7,  in  817  Godet,  in  818  Meyer.) 

If,  however,  this  statement  is  understood  as  by  Tholuck;  "In 
forty  and  six  years  was  this  temple,"  all  that  is  yet  finished,  "built," 


1  We  give  for  comparison  all  tbe  passages  wliere  (oo-ei  is  used  by  him  in  connection  with 
numerals:  Gospel,  i.  56;  ix.  14;  ix.  28;  xxii.  59;  xxiii.  44;  Acts  of  Apostles,  ii.  41;  iv  t: 
V.  36;  X.  3;  xix.  7. 

*  So  Lightf  oot,  Jarvis.  3  Winer,  ii.  769. 


6  CHRONOLOGICAl.  ESSAY. 

it  loses  all  its  chronological  value.  "  We  may  suppose,"  he  remarks, 
"that  at  this  time,  probably  after  the  completion  of  some  main  part 
of  the  edifice,  a  cessation  in  the  building  had  taken  place."  But  in 
this  case,  as  it  is  impossible  to  tell  when  this  cessation  began,  we 
cannot  say  how  long  the  forty-six  years  had  been  completed. 

There  is  still  another  view  of  this  passage  founded  on  the  render- 
ing of  vads  as  opposed  to  iepov,  and  meaning  ' '  the  sanctuary  " ;  not 
the  whole  temple,  but  the  holy  and  most  holy  j^laces.  Taking  this 
view,  Quandt  (16)  refers  the  statement  to  the  period  of  the  rebuild- 
ing under  Zerubbabel,  after  the  return  from  Babylon.  But  this  has 
few  advocates. 

All,  therefore,  that  this  statement  respecting  the  time  occupied 
in  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  gives  us,  is  the  strong  probability 
that  the  Lord's  first  Passover  was  that  of  780  or  781.  The  former 
has  most  in  its  favor.  Edersheim  (i.  375)  remarks  ' '  that  if  a  Jew 
had  calculated  the  time  at  the  Passover  781,  he  would  not  have  said 
forty-six  but  forty-seven  years  was  the  temple  in  building."  The 
Passover  of  780  fell  upon  the  ninth  of  April.  If  then  He  was  about 
thirty  at  this  time,  but  not  a  year  more  or  less.  His  birth  would  be 
about  750.  His  baptism  was  a  few  weeks  earlier  than  the  Passover, 
for  there  intervened  the  temptation  of  forty  days.  His  return  to 
Jordan,  His  visit  to  Cana  and  to  Capernaum,  and  His  journey  to 
Jerusalem.  Allowing  two  or  three  months  for  all  this,  His  baptism 
was  in  the  last  of  779,  or  beginning  of  780.  If  we  suppose  Him  to 
have  been  just  thirty  at  His  bajitism,  His  birth  must  be  placed  in  the 
last  of  749,  or  beginning  of  750.  If,  then,  for  reasons  already  given, 
we  cannot  interpret  ' '  about  thirty  "  as  a  wholly  indefinite  expression, 
but  must  understand  it  as  meaning  that  He  was  some  months  more  or 
less  than  thirty,  we  cannot  place  His  birth  earlier  than  the  middle 
of  749. 

Datum  5. —  Still  another  datum  is  the  visit  of  the  Magi.  This,  as 
we  learn  from  Matthew  (ch.  ii.),  was  before  the  death  of  Herod,  and 
so  before  April,  750.  How  long  an  interval  elapsed  between  their 
coming  and  his  death,  is  matter  of  inference.  Their  arrival  at 
Jerusalem  cannot,  however,  well  be  placed  later  than  February,  750. 
At  this  time  Herod  was  there  (IVIatt.  ii.  1-7),  but  at  the  eclij^se  of  the 
moon,'  March  12-13,  he  was  at  Jericho,  where  he  subsequently  died. 
If,  then,  the  Magi  came  in  February,  the  Lord's  birth  must  have 
taken  place  some  time  earlier,  as  early  at  least  as  the  beginning  of  750. 

The  cause  of  the  .coming  of  the  Magi  to  Jerusalem  was  the  appear 
ing  of  a  star,  which  in  some  way,  whether  by  astrology,  or  tradition, 

1  JoBephus,  Antiq.,  xvii.  6.  4. 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD's  BIRTH.  7 

Or  by  direct  divine  revclatioD,  tliey  knew  to  indicate  the  birth  of  the 
King  of  the  Jews.  If  this  star  were  a  real  star,  subject  to  the  ordi- 
nary laws  which  rule  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  the  time  of  its  appear- 
ing could  be  determined  astronomically,  we  should  find  in  it  a  most 
valuable  chronological  aid.  But  many  regard  it  as  wholly  super- 
natural, a  luminous  body  like  a  star  specially  prepared  by  God  for 
this  end;  and  others  as  a  new  star,  that,  after  shining  awhile  in  the 
heavens,  totally  disappeared;  and  others  still,  as  a  comet.'  If  either 
of  these  suppositions  be  correct,  it  gives  us  no  chronological  datum. 
But  a  considerable  number  of  modern  commentators  are  inclined  to 
regard  it  as  a  conjunction  of  planets,  and  its  time  thus  capable  of 
determination.  This  hyjjothesis  was  first  advanced  by  Kepler,  whose 
attention  was  turned  to  the  matter  by  a  similar  conjunction  at  the 
close  of  1603,  A.D.  In  December  of  that  year,  Saturn  and  Jupiter 
were  in  conjunction,  and  to  them  in  the  spring  following  Mars  was 
added.  In  the  autumn  of  1604,  a  new  star  of  distinguished  brilliancy 
appeared,  which,  however,  soon  began  to  fade,  and  finally,  at  the 
end  of  1605,  vanished  from  sight.  His  attention  thus  aroused, 
Kepler  found  by  com])utation  that  during  the  year  747  of  Rome,  the 
planets  Jupiter  and  Saturn  three  times  came  into  conjunction.  These 
computations,  according  to  the  latest  corrections,  show  these  conjunc- 
tions to  have  taken  place  on  May  29th,  October  1st,  and  December 
5th,  of  that  year,  all  in  the  sign  of  Pisces.  _At  the  first  conjunction 
they  were  only  one  degree  removed,  in  the  two  latter  were  so  near 
that  both  planets  appeared  to  a  weak  eye  as  one.  In  the  spring  of 
748  to  these  conjunctions  Mars  was  added,  and  from  some  Chinese 
astronomical  records  it  has  been  affirmed  that  a  comet  was  visible 
from  February  to  April,  749,  and  again  in  April,  750.  (Ideler,  Hand- 
buch  Chronologic,  ii.  456;  Wieseler,  Syn.,  67;  Zumpt,  303.) 

Several  difficult  questions  meet  us  here.  Are  these  planetary  con- 
junctions to  be  regarded  as  the  star  seen  by  the  Magi  ?  "  We  have 
seen  His  star  in  the  east."  That  the  word  aaT'fip  originally  meant  a 
single  star  is  admitted,  and  was  distinguished  from  d<TTp6v,  but  this 
distinction  was  lost  later.  McClellan  affirms  (400)  that  "the  word 
cannot  in  any  case  be  a  conjunction  of  stars,"  and  Meyer  that 
"this  star  was  certainly  not  a  constellation."  (So  Trench,  but  not  so 
positively.  Star,  29;  and  EUicott.)  But  Edersheim  (i.  204,  note  2) 
quotes  Schleusner  (Lex.  in  N.  T.)  to  prove  that  dari^p  may  be  used  of 
constellations,  meteors,  and  comets:  omne  designare  quod  aliquem 
splendm^em  habet  et  emittit.     Alexander  in  loco  says  :   "  Star  is  in  Greek 

1  Winer,  ii.  533.    Trench,  Star  of  the  Wise  Men,  28.    Spanheim,  Diibia  Evangelica, 
Pars  Secunda. 


8  CHRONOLOGICAL   ESSAY. 

applied  to  any  liimiuary  in  the  heavens,  whether  fixed  star,  planet, 
comet,  or  meteor.  .  .  .  It  may  denote  the  conjunction  itself,  or  the 
appearance  of  a  new  star."  Ebrard  (283),  however,  attempts  to  show 
upon  astrological  grounds  that  the  star  cannot  have  been  a  fixed  star, 
because  these  do  not  change  their  places ;  nor  could  it  have  been  a 
comet,  since  comets,  though  portents,  cannot  astrologically  indicate 
a  definite  event,  as  the  birth  of  a  king;  nor  can  it  have  been  a  new 
star,  since  no  previous  knowledge  of  it  existed,  and  could  have  no 
astrological  value.  It  must,  therefore,  have  been  one  of  the  planets. 
But  as  the  appearing  of  a  single  unrelated  planet  would  have  in 
astrology  no  significance,  it  must  have  been  a  conjunction  of  planets. 

But  if  it  be  admitted  that  the  term  may  have  so  large  a  meaning 
as  to  embrace  the  heavenly  bodies  in  general  and  their  conjunctions, 
yet  the  mention  of  ' '  His  star  " '  seems  plainly  to  refer  to  the  prophecy 
(Numb.  xxiv.  17)  :  "There  shall  come  forth  a  star  out  of  Jacob,"  a 
prediction  to  which  the  Jews  in  the  Lord's  day  gave  a  Messianic  in- 
terpretation. The  idea  of  a  conjunction  of  planets  being  the  star, 
seems  thus  excluded.' 

But  would  any  conjunction  of  planets  answer  to  the  statements  of 
Matthew  respecting  this  star  ?  If  so,  they  must  have  been  so  near 
together  as  to  appear  as  one.  This  is  said  by  Ideler.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  Rev.  Prof.  Pritchard  (Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  i.  1072) 
denies  that  the  two  planets  wei'e  so  near  together  as  to  appear 
as  one.  He  finds,  and  his  calculations  have  been  verified  and  con- 
firmed at  Greenwich,  "that  this  conjunction  was  not  on  November 
12th,  but  on  December  5th,  and  that,  even  with  Ideler's  some- 
what strange  postulate  of  an  observer  with  weak  eyes,  the  planets 
could  never  have  appeared  as  one  star,  for  they  never  approached 
each  other  within  double  the  apparent  diameter  of  the  moon."  Even 
if  for  a  short  time  the  two  planets  appeared  as  a  single  star,  this 
would  hardly  answer  to  the  accounts  which  jMatthew  gives  of  its 
movements. 

If,  then,  we  reject  the  view  that  a  conjunction  of  planets  was 
the  star  of  the  Magi,  was  it  a  new  one?  This  was  held  b}"^  Augustine 
and  many  of  the  ancients,  meaning,  however,  not  merely  a  newly- 
appearing,  but  a  newly-created  star  (Miinter,  Das  Stern,  9 ;  Trench, 
Star,  28).  That  it  was  a  new  star,  following  the  conjunctions,  was 
held  also  by  the  astronomer  Kepler.  He  was  led  to  this  conclusion 
the  more  readily  that  some  thirty  years  before  his  day  there  appeared 


nt  is  a  remark  of  Lewin  (S7S),  that  rnmors  of  the  coming  Messiah,  occasioned  by  the 
vision  of  Zacharias  and  the  birth  of  John  the  Baptist,  had  spread  from  Jerusalem  to 
the  Jews  of  the  East,  and  thus  led  the  Magi  to  watch  the  heavens.  This  is  very  im 
probable. 


DATE   OF   THE   LORD*S   BIRTH.  9 

a  very  remarkable  star,  which  is  thus  described  by  Grant  (Hist,  of 
Phys.  Ast.,  539) :  "It  was  first  seen  by  Tycho  Brahe  on  the  evening 
of  the  11th  of  November,  1573.  It  then  surpassed  in  histre  the 
brightest  of  tiie  fixed  stars,  and  was  even  more  brilliant  than  the 
planet  Jupiter.  ...  It  almost  rivalled  Venus,  and,  like  that 
planet,  was  seen  by  some  persons  even  in  the  daytime.  During  the 
remaining  part  of  November  it  continued  to  shine  with  undiminished 
lustre,  but  it  subsequently  began  to  decline,  until  at  length,  in  the 
month  of  March,  1574,  it  ceased  to  be  visible."  Another  new  star 
appeared  in  1604,  and  was  seen  by  Kepler  himself,  who  describes  it 
"as  surpassing  in  brightness  stars  of  the  first  magnitude,  as  well  as 
the  planets  Mars,  Saturn,  and  Jupiter,  all  of  which  were  in  its  vicin- 
ity." Like  the  star  of  1572,  it  began  to  decline  soon  after  its  appear- 
ance, and  finally  ceased  to  be  visible  between  October,  1605,  and 
February,  1606.  Grant  adds,  that  "  phenomena  of  a  similar  kind 
have  subsequently  been  observed,  but  have  not  exhibited  such  re- 
markable features  as  the  two  stars  just  mentioned."  But  if  the  star 
of  the  Magi  was  a  new  star,  as  held  by  Kejiler  and  many  since,  has  its 
appearance  any  chronological  value?  Cleai'ly  it  has  not,  unless  we  can 
connect  it  in  point  of  time  with  the  conjunctions  of  747,  whose  times 
we  know.  This  was  done  by  Kepler,  whose  attention  was  turned  to 
the  matter  by  the  similar  conjunctions  in  1608  and  1004.  The  new 
star  of  which  mention  has  been  made,  appeared  in  October  of  this 
year,  1604.  Kepler,  having  ascertained  that  like  conjunctions  took 
place  in  747,  inferred  that  a  new  star  may  then  have  appeared  follow- 
ing the  conjunctions — the  star  of  the  Magi.  If  this  were  so,  and 
at  a  like  interval  of  time,  its  appearance  would  have  been  in  748, 
and  thus  would  give  us  a  chronological  datum. 

But  other  questions  would  here  arise.  Did  the  new  star  indicate 
to  the  Magi  the  actual  birth  of  the  Lord,  or  the  announcement  to  the 
Virgin  of  His  birth?  (Luke  ii.  31.)  Or  did  it  merely  indicate,  like 
the  conjunction  of  which  Abarbanel  speaks  as  occurring  three  years 
before  the  birth  of  Moses,  that  the  time  of  His  birth  was  approaching? 
(Wieseler,  Beitriige,  153,  affirms  that  it  was  a  common  Jewish  belief 
that  these  conjunctions  preceded  the  birth  two  or  three  years,  but 
this  statement  seems  to  rest  on  no  sufficient  authority.)  We  cannot 
answer  these  questions.  If  a  new  star,  like  that  in  Kepler's  day, 
appeared  to  the  Magi,  and  if  it  followed  at  a  like  interval  after  the 
conjunctions,  then  only  some  valid  chronological  inferences  might  be 
drawn  from  it. 

If  confidence  may  be  given  to  the  Chinese  records,  a  new  star 
was  visible  in  February  and  March,  749,  and  again  in  April,   750, 

1* 


10  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

Pingre  says  there  were  two  comets, — one  in  749,  and  one  in  750. 
Wieseler,  assuming  that  there  was  but  one,  argues  that  tliis  star  oi 
comet  was  the  star  of  the  Magi,  and  that  when  it  appealed  they 
began  their  journey.  He  thus  obtains  a  definite  date,  and  infers  that 
the  Lord  was  born  early  in  750.  It  is  jDlain  that  this  has  little  chrono- 
logical value. 

But  another  view  of  this  star  has  been  taken  by  many, — that  it  was 
not  one  of  the  heavenly  orbs,  but  some  extraordinary  luminous  appear- 
ance like  a  star,  which,  having  served  its  purpose  in  guiding  the  Magi 
to  Bethlehem,  vanished  forever.  (Many  of  the  early  fathers  ascribed 
the  movements  of  this  supernatural  body  to  angelic  activity, —  see  a 
Lapide  in  loco;  a  view  which  Chemnitz  favors,  and  as  confirmatory 
refers  to  the  angel  and  to  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shining  around  the 
shepherds.)  In  favor  of  this  view  is  the  statement  (Matthew  ii.  9)  that 
the  star  went  before  them  and  stood  over  where  the  child  was.  It 
is  obsei-ved  by  Mill  (305,  note)  that  "this,  literally  interpreted,  can- 
not jiossibly  be  understood  of  any  star  so  called,  but  of  a  meteoric 
body  moving  in  the  region  of  the  terrene  atmosphere."  And  this 
seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  Augustine  in  calling  it  a  new  star  whose 
purpose  —  ministerium  officii  —  was  fulfilled  when  it  led  them  to  the 
house  of  the  infant  Lord.  On  the  other  hand,  many  deny  any  men- 
tion in  the  narrative  of  a  miraculous  star.     (So  Weiss.) 

But  if  this  be  accepted,  we  must  still  bring  this  luminous  appear- 
ance into  some  relations  of  time  with  the  conjunctions  whose  date  we 
know,  or,  as  regards  our  present  inquiry,  we  gain  nothing.  But  of 
such  relations  we  are  ignorant.  We  can  only  say  that,  if  later  than 
the  conjunctions,  it  must  have  appeared  sometime  during  or  after 
December,  747. 

Most  recent  writers  take  the  view  that  these  conjunctions,  though 
they  were  not  the  star  itself,  were  of  importance  in  awaking  the 
attention  of  the  Magi,  who  were  students  of  the  heavens,  and  thus 
preparing  them  to  watch  for  some  more  positive  sign.  This  they 
found  in  the  star  appearing  later,  whether  that  star  may  have  been 
a  transient  one,  such  as  seen  by  Kepler,  or  a  comet,  or  a  meteor,  or  a 
luminous  body  specially  prepared  for  this  end.  In  this  case,  the  con- 
junctions defined  the  earliest  period  of  the  Lord's  birth,  and  as  we 
have  the  other  terminus  —  the  death  of  Herod  —  His  birth  must  be 
placed  in  the  interval  747-750. 

Datum  6. —  Many  have  found  a  more  definite  chronological  datum 
in  the  statement  of  Matthew  (ii.  IG),  that  Herod,  after  the  departure 
of  the  Magi,  slew  all  the  children  of  Bethlehem  "from  two  years  old 
and  under,  according  to  the  time  which  he  had  diligently  inquired  of 


DATE   OF   THE   LORD's   BIRTH.  11 

the  wise  men."  The  inference  is  drawn  that  the  appearing  of  the  star 
must  have  been  two  years  before  their  arrival  in  Jerusalem.  (So 
Miinter  and  many.)  There  are  too  many  uncertain  elements  here  to 
make  this  datum  of  the  two  years  of  much  value.  What  was  the  star? 
What  event  did  the  star  denote?  Was  it  prophetic,  foretelling  the 
Lord's  birth?  In  this  case  it  may  have  appeared  one,  or  two,  or  more 
years  before  the  nativity.  Did  it  follow  the  birth?  If  so,  by  what 
interval?  It  is  by  no  means  certain  what  the  Magi  understood  it  to 
denote,  though  more  probably  the  birth.  Nor  do  we  know  that 
Herod  had  the  same  understanding  as  they.  But  if  he  believed  that 
it  ajjpeared  at  the  time  of  the  Lord's  birth,  did  he  ascertain  how  soon 
after  its  appearing  they  began  their  journey ;  and  how  long  they  were 
on  the  way  ?  He  may  have  done  so,  but  as  he  counted  on  their  re- 
turn to  him  from  Bethlehem  with  definite  information  as  to  the  child 
they  had  seen,  it  was  not  necessary  that  he  should  do  this.  All  that 
we  can  say  is,  that  unable  to  obtain  from  them  personally  the  in- 
formation he  sought,  he  meant  to  be  sure  that  the  infant  should 
not  escape  him,  and  to  this  end  orders  that  all  the  children  within 
the  limits  in  any  way  indicated  by  the  star,  should  be  killed.* 

Datum  7. —  Still  another  datum  on  which  some  rely,  is  the  exist- 
ence of  general  peace  throughout  the  world  at  the  Lord's  birth.  This 
peace  is  sujDposed  to  have  been  foretold  by  the  prophets,  and  its  realiz- 
ation announced  by  the  angels  in  their  song  on  the  night  of  the 
nativity  (Luke  ii.  14),  "Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth 
peace,  good  will  toward  men."  With  this  is  joined  the  closing  of  the 
temple  of  Janus  by  Augustus,  the  sign  of  peace  throughout  the  Roman 
Empire.  It  is  known  that  this  temple  was  twice  closed  by  him,  in 
725,  in  739,  and  probably  also  a  third  time,  though  the  year  is  not  cer- 
tainly determined.  "We  know  no  more  concerning  it  than  this: 
that  744  sub  finem^  it  was  intended  to  have  taken  place,  but  was 
delayed  a  little  longer  by  some  unimjDortant  commotions  among  the 
Daci  and  Dalmatse."^  In  the  absence  of  exact  inforTuation,  we  can 
say  no  more  than  that  there  was  a  period  of  general  tranquillity 
throughout  the  Roman  world  for  five  or  six  years,  or  probably  from 


1  Greswell,  ii.  135,  would  understand  by  children  of  two  years  those  of  thirteen  months 
only.  All  older  than  this  were  exempt.  But  this  is  doubtful,  and  is  unnecessary. 
Browne,  Ordo  Sseclorum,  52,  explains  Herod's  order  from  the  fact  the  star  appeared  two 
years  before  the  nativity. 

"Greswell,  i.  469.  See  Patritius,  lii.  165.  According  to  Sepp  and  Browne,  it  was 
closed  from  746-752;  to  Animer  and  Greswell  from  748  or  749-752  or  753;  to  Jarvis,  from 
746-758.  Wieseler  makes  the  order  to  shut  it  to  have  issued  in  743,  but  its  execution  to 
have  been  delayed  till  752. 


12  CHRONOLOGICAL   ESSAY. 

740  to  753,  during  wliick  period  tlie  Lord  was  born.  We  cannot, 
without  building  on  conjecture,  reach  any  more  exact  result.' 
/^To  sum  up  the  results  of  our  inquiries,  we  find  that  the  birth  of 
/fhe  Lord  was  not  later  than  Aj)ril,  750,  and  probably  not  later  than 
[January .^  The  time  in  this  direction  is  limited  by  the  death  of  Herod 
in  April  of  that  year,  and  the  events  immediately  preceding  it.  On 
tlie  other  hand,  if  we  give  to  the  conjunction  of  planets  in  747  as 
connected  wifh  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  any  chronological  value,  we 
cannot  put  His  birth  earlier  than  that  year.  Again,  if  we  understand 
the  statement  of  TertuUian,  that  the  enrollment  which  brought  Joseph 
and  Mary  to  Bethlehem  was  under  Saturninus  as  governor,  He  may 
have  been  born  in  746  or  747  or  748.  But  if  the  enrollment  was  under 
Varus,  He  may  have  been  born  in  749  or  in  the  first  half  of  750.  And 
as  He  was  about  thirty  years  of  age  at  the  beginning  of  His  ministry, 
and  the  date  of  His  first  Passover  after  its  beginning  was  780,  we  reach 
the  year  749.  We  have  thus  to  choose  between  the  years  747,  748, 
749,  and  the  beginning  of  750.  (The  probabilities  are  in  favor  of  749, 
and  in  our  further  examinations  we  shall  assume  this  as  the  year  of 
His  birth^ 

We  give  the  opinions  of  some  of  the  older  and  of  the  more  modern 
chronologists  and  commentators: 

For  tlie  year  747,  Sanclemente,  Wurm,  Ideler,  Munter,  Sepp,  Jar- 
vis,  Alford,  Patritius,  Ebrard,  Zumpt,  Keim;  748,  Kepler,  Lewin; 
749,  Petavius,  Usher,  Norris,  Tillemont,  Lichtenstein,  Ammer,  Fried- 
lieb,  Bucher,  Browne,  Godet,  McClellan;  750,  Bengel,  Wieseler, 
Greswell,  Ellicott,  Pressense,  Thomson;  for  751,  Keil,  Quandt;  752, 
Caspari,  Reiss;  Lardner  hesitates  between  748  and  749;  so  Robinson, 
"not  later  than  the  autumn  of  749,  perhaps  a  year  earlier";  so 
Beyschlag,  Schenkel;  Pound,  "August  749-August  750."  Chnton 
finds  the  earliest  possil)le  date  the  autumn  of  748,  the  latest  that  of 
750;  Woolsey,  undecided. 

Time  op  the  Year. 
Batumi. — We  proceed  to  inquire  in  what  part  of  the  year  the 
Lord  was  born.  The  only  direct  datum  which  the  Gospels  give  us 
is  found  in  the  statement  of  Luke  (i.  5),  that  Zacharias  "was  of  the 
course  of  Abia."  It  is  known  that  the  priests  were  divided  into 
twenty-four  classes,  each  of  which  officiated  at  the  temple  in  its  turn 
for  a  week."     This  order,  originally  established  by  David,  was  broken 


'For  recent  discussions  leading  to  the  same  general  conclusion,  see  Woolsey  in  Bib. 
Sacra,  1870,  322;  Zumpt,  232;  others,  as  Sepp,  i.  132,  attach  more  chronological  import- 
ance to  it. 

2  1  Chron.,  xxiv.  1-19;  Lighlfoot,  ix.  44. 


DATE   OF  THE   LORD'S   BIRTH.  13 

up  by  the  cajotivity.  The  four  classes  that  returned  from  Babylon 
were  divided  anew  by  Ezra  into  tw  enty-four,  to  which  the  old  names 
were  given.  Another  interruption  was  made  by  the  invasion  of 
Antiochus,  but  the  old  order  was  restored  by  the  Maccabees.  Of 
these  courses  that  of  Jehoiarib  was  the  first,  that  of  Abia  the  eighth. 
We  need,  therefore,  only  to  know  a  definite  time  at  which  any  one  of 
jhe  courses  was  officiating  to  be  able  to  trace  the  succession.  Such  a 
latum  we  find  in  the  Talmudical  statements,  supported  by  Josephus,' 
that  at  the  destruction  of  the  temple  by  Titus  on  the  5th  August, 
833,  the  first  class  hud  just  entered  on  its  course.  Its  period  of  serv- 
ice was  from  the  evening  of  the  4th  August,  which  was  the  Sabbath, 
to  the  evening  of  the  following  Sabbath,  on  the  11th  August.  We 
can  now  easily  compute  backward,  and  ascertain  at  what  time  in  any 
given  year  each  class  was  officiating. 

If  now  we  take  the  year  749  as  the  probable  year  of  Christ's 
I)irth,  the  appearance  of  the  angel  to  Zacharias  announcing  John's 
birth  must  be  placed  in  748.  In  this  year  we  find  by  computation 
that  the  course  of  Abia,  or  the  eighth  course,  officiated  from  the 
17-23d  April,  and  again  from  the  3-9th  October.^  At  each  of  these 
periods,  therefore,  was  Zacharias  at  Jerusalem.  If  the  annunciation 
of  the  angel  was  made  to  him  during  the  former,  the  birth  of  John 
may  be  placed  near  the  beginning  of  749,  and  the  Lord's  birth  about 
six  months  later,  or  near  the  middle  of  749;  if  the  annunciation  was 
made  during  the  latter,  John's  birth  was  near  the  middle  of  749,  and 
the  Lord's  birth  near  its  end. 

The  fact  that  we  do  not  know  how  soon  after  the  completion  of 
the  ministry  of  Zacharias  the  conception  of  John  is  to  be  placed,  pre- 
vents any  very  exact  statement  of  dates.  Luke  (i.  24)  uses  only  the 
general  expression  "  after  those  days  his  wife  Elisabeth  conceived." 
Yet  the  tenor  of  the  narrative  leads  us  to  believe  that  it  was  soon 
after  his  return  to  his  home,  and  may  be  placed  in  either  of  the  months 
April  or  October,  748.  Counting  onward  fifteen  months  we  reach 
June  and  December,  749,  in  one  of  which  the  Lord's  birth  is  to  be 
placed.  The  Greek  church  celebrates  it  on  the  2od  Soi')tember. 
(Tillemont,  i.  145,  note.) 

It  is  a  very  obvious  objection  to  the  chronological  value  of  these 
conclusions,  that  if  we  take  another  year  we  reach  other  results.  As 
saidbyGodet:  "Everything  depends  upon  our  knowledge  of  the 
year  of  the  Lord's  birth."     Thus  Lewin  (109),  taking  748  as  the  year 


1  War,  vi.  4.  5. 

'  So  Wieseler.  143;  Licht.,  76;  Friedlieb,  80;  Browne,  35.    Greswell,  i.  4^,  isept.  30 
—  Oct.  7.    Edersheim,  i,  135. 


14  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

of  the  Xativity,  finds  that  in  747  the  course  of  Abia  was  on  duty  from 
the  IGth  to  the  20th  May,  and  if  we  place  the  coucejjtion  of  John  the 
Baptist  about  the  end  of  ]\Iay,  lie  was  born  in  February,  748,  and  the 
Lord  about  the  first  of  August  of  the  same  year.  Upon  this  datum 
that  Zacharias  was  of  the  course  of  Abia,  Edersheim  places  some 
reliance,  but  is  not  sure  (ii.  705).  McClellau,  391,  relies  on  it  with  much 
confidence  as  proving  that  the  Nativity  was  about  December  25,  749. 
If  we  find  reason  on  other  grounds  to  put  tlie  Nativity  in  749,  the 
argument  from  the  course  of  Abia  helps  to  confirm  it. 

Datum  2.  —  In  choosing  between  these  months  —  June  and  Decem- 
ber—  some  weight  is  to  be  given  to  the  statement  of  Luke  (ii.  8)  that 
in  the  night  when  the  Lord  was  born  shepherds  were  in  the  field 
keeping  watch  over  their  flock.  Does  not  this  rather  point  to  the 
summer  than  to  the  winter,  to  June  than  to  December  ?  To  answer 
this  we  must  make  some  inquiries  respecting  the  climate  of  Judwa. 
Travelers  in  Palestine  differ  widely  in  their  meteorological  accounts, 
nor  is  this  to  be  wondered  at,  as  the  seasons  vary  greatly  in  diflferent 
years,  and  each  traveler  can  speak  only  of  what  falls  under  his  own 
personal  observation.  Instead,  therefore,  of  trying  to  reach  some 
general  conclusions  from  such  isolated  accounts,  we  shall  take  the 
statements  of  those  who,  having  resided  some  time  in  Jerusalem,  give 
us  the  results  of  their  observations  for  several  successive  years.  And 
we  note  first  the  statements  of  Schwartz'  and  Barclay.^ 

The  year  is  divided  into  two  seasons,  summer  and  winter,  or  the 
dry  and  the  wet.  1'he  winter  rains  begin  to  fall  in  the  latter  part  of 
October  or  beginning  of  November.  The  most  rainy  month  is  Feb- 
ruary. During  the  months  of  December,  January,  February,  and 
March,  there  is  no  entire  cessation  of  rain  for  any  long  interval ;  "yet 
an  interregnum  of  several  weeks'  dry  weather  generally  occurs  be- 
tween the  middle  of  Deceml)er  and  the  middle  of  February,  somewhat 
distinguishing  the  former  rains  of  the  season  from  the  latter."  '  "The 
average  monthly  temperature  during  four  years  from  1851  was,  for 
November,  63.8°;  December,  54.5°;  January, 49.4°;  February,  54.4° ; 
March,  55.7°."^  "The  temperature  of  Palestine  averages  during 
the  winter  50°  to  53^°."  '  Of  the  month  of  December  the  following 
account  is  given:  "The  earth  fully  clothed  with  rich  verdure. 
"Wheat  and  barley  still  sown,  also  various  kinds  of  pulse.  Sugar-cane 
in  market.  Cauliflowei-s,  cabbages,  radishes,  lettuce,  lentiles,  etc. 
Ploughing   still   continues  at   intervals."^     "Temperature   same   as 


1  Descriptive  Geography  of  Palestine,  .325-331. 

*  City  of  the  Great  King,  414-429.  »  Barclay. 

♦  Barclay.  *  Schwartz,  «  Barclay. 


DATE   OF   THE   LORD'S  BIRTH.  15 

preceding  montli.  The  sowing  of  grain  in  the  field  has  already  com- 
menced. Although  the  oranges  and  kindred  fruit  have  been  long 
since  ripe,  they  continue  to  mature  on  the  trees  till  toward  April  and 
May. "  '  February  is  the  coldest  part  of  the  year,  and  fires  are  used 
by  the  Frank  population,  though  little  by  the  natives,  and  snow  and 
ice  are  occasionally  seen. 

These  statements  are  confirmed,  in  general,  by  the  latest  and  best 
authorities.^  From  these  we  select  the  observations  of  Dr.  Chaplin 
made  at  Jerusalem  for  a  period  of  twenty-one  years,  from  1861-1882. 
(Qt.  St.  1883,  p.  8,  ff.)  Speaking  of  the  rainy  season,  he  says  there 
are  three  times  of  rain:  1.  The  early  rain,  beginning  in  October  and 
extending  to  the  middle  of  December;  2.  the  copious  winter  rain, 
from  the  middle  of  December  to  the  middle  of  March ;  3.  the  latter 
or  spring  rain,  from  the  middle  of  March  to  May.  The  mean  dura- 
tion of  the  rainy  season  is  188  days;  of  the  dry,  177.  For  the  three 
winter  months,  December,  January,  and  February,  the  average  num- 
ber of  rainy  days  was  as  follows:  December,  9.04;  January,  10.18; 
February,  10.43.  "During  the  rainy  season  rain  falls  on  one  or  more 
days,  and  is  followed  on  one  or  more  days  by  fine  weather;  and, 
therefore,  these  days  of  the  winter  and  early  spring  months  are  some  of 
the  most  enjoyable  that  the  climate  of  Palestine  affords."'  As  to  the 
temperature  of  these  years,  his  observations  give  a  mean  of  62.8°; 
in  February,  the  coldest  month,  47.9°;  in  August,  76.1°.  The  lowest 
temperature  for  these  twenty  years  was,  in  January,  25°  Fahr.  In 
fourteen  of  these  years  was  snow,  in  eight  none.  In  December  the 
highest  temperature,  73° ;  the  lowest,  36°.  On  the  20th  of  Decem- 
ber, 1879,  snow  fell  to  the  depth  of  seventeen  inches.  But,  from 
1861-82,  snow  fell  only  three  times  in  December  (Table  12).  In 
Jerusalem  frost  generally  occurs  on  five  or  six  nights  in  the  course  of 
the  winter,  but  it  is  rare  for  ice  to  remain  through  the  day,  except  in 
cold  situations,  and  sheltered  from  the  sun. 

It  should  be  said  that  Dr.  Chaplin  took  his  observations  in  a  gar- 
den within  the  city;  and  he  remarks:  "It  is  no  doubt  often  much 
cooler  on  the  hills  eastward." 

Although  these  observations  have  special  reference  to  Jerusalem, 
they  apply  equally  well  to  Bethlehem,  the  climate  of  which  is  not 
unlike  that  of  Jerusalem,  though,  according  to  Tobler,  somewhat 
milder.  On  the  10th  of  February,  1887,  snow^  was  lying  on  the 
higher  mountains  beyond  Bethlehem,  and  there  were  heavy  frosts  for 
several  nights  in  Jerusalem  (Qt.  St.,  April,  1887). 

•  Schwartz. 

2  Winer,  ii.  691;  Raumer,  77;  Robinson,  ii.  428;  Tobler,  Denkblatter,  iii.,  etc. 

•As  to  the  rainfall  in  Palestine,^  see  Rice  in  Journ.  Bib.  Lit.  &  Ex.,  June,  1886. 


16  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

There  seems,  then,  so  far  as  climate  is  concerned,  no  good  ground 
to  affirm  that  shepherds  could  not  have  been  pasturing  theh-  flocks 
in  the  tield  during  the  month  of  December.  As  we  have  seen,  Bar- 
clay states  that  in  this  month  the  earth  is  fully  clothed  -with  rich 
verdure,  and  there  is  generally  an  interval  of  dry  weather  between 
the  middle  of  December  and  the  middle  of  February.-  Schubert^ 
says  that  the  period  about  Christmas  is  often  one  of  the  loveliest 
periods  of  the  whole  year.  Tobler  says,  the  weather  about  Christmas 
is  favorable  to  the  feeding  of  flocks,  and  often  most  beautiful.  "On 
the  27th  December,  1845,  we  had  very  agreeable  weather.'"*  It  is 
during  this  month  that  the  wind  begins  to  blow  from  the  south  or 
southwest,  which,  according  to  Schwartz,  "brings  rain  and  betokens 
warm  weather,"  and  thus  hastens  forward  vegetation. 

Unless,  then,  the  climate  of  Judaea  has  become  in  the  lapse  of 
years  much,  warmer  than  of  old,  the  flocks  may  have  been  feeding  in 
the  fields  of  Bethlehem  in  the  month  of  December.  But,  according 
toArago,^  there  has  been  no  important  change  for  the  last  three 
thousand  and  three  hundred  years.  Nor  do  the  incidental  notices  of 
Scripture  conflict  with  this.  The  Lord's  Avords,  ' '  Pray  that  your  flight 
be  not  in  the  winter,"  are  easily  understood  when  we  remember  that 
winter  is  the  rainy  season,  and  most  unfavorable  for  journeying.  That 
a  fire  was  made  at  a  much  later  period  of  the  year  (John  xviii.  18)  is 
plainly  an  exceptional  case,  and  for  this  reason  mentioned.  "  Strong, 
and  at  times  cold  winds  iwevail  in  April."* 

There  remains  to  be  noticed  a  saying  of  the  Talmudists,  that  the 
flocks  were  taken  to  the  fields  in  March  and  brought  home  in  Novem- 
ber. But  this  had  reference  to  those  pastures  that  were  found  in  the 
wilderness  far  away  from  the  cities  or  villages,  and  were  resorted  to 
by  the  shepherds  during  the  summer  months.  "  The  spring  coming 
on,  they  drove  their  beasts  into  wildernesses  or  champaign  grounds, 
where  they  fed  them  the  whole  summer.  The  winter  coming  on,  they 
betook  themselves  home  again  with  the  flocks  and  herds." ' 

Edersheim  (i.  187,  note)  refers  to  another  Rabbinic  authority, 
VFhich  says  that  the  flocks,  fed  in  the  wilderness,  remained  there  all  the 
year  round.  The  inference,  therefore,  drawn  by  many,  that  this  flock 
being  kept  through  the  night  in  the  field,  it  could  not  have  been  so 
late  as  December,  is  without  ground.  And,  if  the  flock  was  near 
Bethlehem,  having  been  brought  in  from  the  wilderness,  it  would 
show  that  this  was  after  November,  and  in  one  of  the  wintei 
months. 


1  Quoted  by  Wiescler,  148.  -  So  Ritter,  Theil,  xvi.  480. 

3  In  Winer,  ii.  6!)2.  *  Schwartz. 

*  Lightfoot,  on  Luke  ii.  8. 


DATE   OF   THE   LORD'S  BIRTH.  17 

The  question  is  raised  by  Edersheim,  whether  this  flock  was  an 
ordinary  one,  and  the  shepherds  ordinary  shejjherds  ;  or,  one 
reserved  for  temple  sacrifices,  and  tlie  shepherds  its  keepers?  If  the 
last,  the  presence  of  the  flock  at  Bethlehem  gives  in  itself  no  indication 
of  the  time  of  the  year.  The  point  will  be  considered  when  the  birth 
of  the  Lord  is  spoken  of  in  its  historical  relations. 

If,  then,  we  have  to  choose  between  the  months  of  December  and 
June,  the  balance  of  probabilities  is  in  favor  of  the  former.  As  the 
spring  rains  cease  in  April,  the  whol^  country  soon  becomes  dry  and 
barren.  Of  May,  Barclay  (423)  remarks:  "Vegetation  having  at- 
tained its  maximum,  now  begins  rapidly  to  decline  for  want  of 
rain;"  and  of  June,  "  Herbage  becoming  parched,  the  nomad  Arabs 
begin  to  move  northward  with  their  flocks." 

As  the  early  tradition  of  the  Church  designated  this  month  as  the 
time  of  the  Lord's  birth,  it  has  been  generally  accepted,  but  not 
universally.  Lightfoot  makes  it  to  have  been  in  September;  New- 
come,  in  October ;  Paulus,  in  March ;  Wieseler,  in  Februaiy ;  Lichten- 
stein,  in  June;  Greswell,  in  April;  Clinton,  in  spring;  Lardner  and 
Robinson,  in  autumn;  Strong  and  Lewin,  in  August;  Quandt,  in 
May, 

Day  of  the  Month. 

If  we  accept  the  month  of  December,  the  day  of  the  month  still 
remains  undetermined.  If  we  place  the  ministry  of  Zacharias  in 
Jerusalem  from  the  3d  to  9th  October,  748,  and  the  conception  of 
John  soon  after,  the  sixth  month  of  Elisabeth  (Luke  i.  36)  would 
extend  from  the  middle  of  March  to  the  middle  of  April.  During 
this  period  was  the  annunciation  to  Mary,  and  the  Lord's  birth  must 
then  be  placed  between  the  middle  of  December,  749,  and  the  middle 
of  January,  750.  A  more  definite  result  we  cannot  reach,  except  we 
receive  the  traditional  date  of  the  25th  of  December.  The  origin 
and  value  of  this  tradition  we  jKoceed  to  consider. 

It  is  now  generally  granted  that  the  day  of  the  nativity  was  not 
observed  as  a  feast  in  any  part  of  the  Church,  east  or  west,  till  some 
time  in  the  fourth  century. '  If  any  day  had  been  earlier  fixed  upon 
as  the  Lord's  birthday,  it  was  not  commemorated  by  any  religious 
rites,  nor  is  it  mentioned  by  any  writers.  The  observance  of  the  25th 
Decem])er  is  ascribed  to  Julius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  A.D.  837-352.  It  is 
mentioned  as  observed  under  his  successor,  Liberius,  A.D.  352-366. 


1  So  Clinton.  "  Not  only  was  the  day  unknown,  but  for  ,300  years  after  the  ascension 
no  day  was  set  apart  for  the  commemoration  of  the  birth  of  Christ."  Binterim,  Deuk- 
wiirdigkeiten,  v.  1.  328,  asserts  that  the  feast  was  celebrated  much  earlier,  but  his  proofs 
are  not  convincing. 


18  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

In  the  Eastern  Churcli  till  this  time,  the  6th  January  had  been  ob- 
served as  the  day  of  the  Lord's  baptism,  and  had  been  regarded  also 
as  the  day  of  His  birth,  it  being  inferred  from  Luke  iii.  23,  that  He 
was  just  thirty  when  baptized.  It  was  only  by  degrees  that  a  dis- 
dnction  began  to  be  made  between  the  date  of  His  birth  and  that  of 
flis  baptism,  and  that  each  began  to  be  observed  upon  diflferent  days. 
Chrysostom '  states  that  it  was  only  within  ten  years  that  the  25th 
December  had  been  made  known  to  them  by  the  Western  Church  as 
the  day  of  His  nativity,  but  asserts  that  through  the  public  records 
of  the  taxing  (Luke  ii.  1-4)  preserved  at  Rome,  it  had  long  been 
known  to  the  Christians  of  that  city.  From  this  time,  about  the  end 
of  the  fourth  century,  this  day  was  commemorated  as  the  birthday 
both  in  the  east  and  west.  The  ground  of  its  non-observance  for  so 
long  a  time  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  in  His  birth  He  humbled 
Himself,  and  His  glory  was  hidden.  Those  acts  of  God  were  com- 
memorated in  which  His  glory  was  revealed.  The  first  of  these  was 
the  visit  of  the  Magi  and  their  adoration ;  the  second,  the  descent  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  at  His  baptism,  and  the  voice  from  heaven ;  the  third, 
the  exhibition  of  His  power  in  changing  the  water  into  wine.  It  is 
certain  that  down  to  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  the  Orientals, 
if  they  commemorated  the  birthday  at  all,  commemorated  it  with  the 
Epiphany  on  the  6th  January.      (Binterim,  v.  1.  530.) 

Thus  we  have  in  favor  of  the  25th  December,  the  fact  that  the 
Eastern  Churches  were  induced  to  adopt  it,  and  to  transfer  to  it  the 
feast  which  they  had  before  observed  upon  the  6th  of  January.  We 
can  scarce  think  this  done  without  some  good  chronological  grounds, 
real  or  supposed.  But  we  do  not  know  what  these  grounds  were. 
Some ''  ascribe  great  importance  to  the  statements  of  Justin  Martyr, 
Tertullian,  and  Chrysostom,  that  in  the  .public  archives  at  Rome  a 
registry  existed  of  the  census  under  Augustus,  by  which  the  Lord's 
birthday  was  conclusively  established.  Jarvis  supposes  Tertullian  to 
give  the  very  words  of  the  enrollment  as  he  found  them  in  the  Roman 
archives,  in  which  Mary  is  mentioned  as  the  mother  of  Jesus  —  Maria 
ex  qua  nascitur  Christus.  Thus  the  day  being  proved  by  the  register 
at  Rome,  the  knowledge  of  it  gradually  spread  to  the  Eastern 
Churches.  But  most  chronologists  have  regarded  these  statements 
as  of  little  value.' 


1  Antioch,  A.  D.  386.  2  So  Jarvis,  370  and  537. 

3  See  Kingsley  in  New  Englander,  April,  1&47,  who  says  that  they  are  not  referred  to  by 
Baronius,  or  Pagi,  or  Causabon,  or  relied  on  by  Usher  or  Newcome.  '•  In  the  time  of 
Julius  Caesar  it  [the  vernal  equinox]  corresponded  to  the  2.5th  of  March,  in  the  sixteenth 
century  it  had  retrograded  to  the  lUh.  By  suppressing  ten  days  in  the  calendar,  Greg- 
ory [in  15821  restored  the  equinox  to  the  21st  of  March,  the  day  on  which  it  fell  at  the 
time  of  the  Council  of  Nice  in  325."    Dr.  Barnard  in  Johnson's  Cyclopedia,  Art.  Calendar. 


DATE   OF   THE   LORD'S   BIRTH.  19 

The  fact  that  the  tradition,  which  placed  the  Lord's  birth  on  the 
25th  December,  also  placed  the  birth  of  John  Baptist  on  the  24th 
June  preceding,  the  annunciation  to  the  virgin  on  the  25th  March, 
and  the  day  of  Elisabeth's  conception  on  the  24th  September,  or  on  the 
four  cardinal  points  of  the  year,  has  led  many  to  suppose  that  these 
periods  were  selected  with  reference  to  their  astronomical  signifi- 
cance, rather  than  as  the  real  dates  of  these  events.  It  strengthens 
this  supposition  that  so  many  of  the  Christian  festivals  were  placed 
upon  days  remarkable  in  the  Julian  calendar.  Noting  these  facts, 
Sir  Isaac  Newton '  inferred  that  ''these  days  were  fixed  in  the  first 
Christian  calendars  by  mathematicians  at  pleasure,  without  regard  to 
tradition,  and  that  the  Christians  afterward  took  uj^  what  they  found 
in  the  calendars."  More  probable  is  the  supposition  that  these  dates 
were  in  part  selected  as  the  times  of  Christian  feasts,  in  order  to 
serve  as  a  counterpoise  to  the  corresponding  heathen  festivals,  and  in 
part  because  of  their  typical  meaning.  It  does  not  appear  that  the 
feast  of  the  nativity  can  be  directly  connected  with  any  heathen 
festival,  for  the  connection  between  this  day  and  the  dies  natalis  solis 
invicti,  cannot  be  proved;  but  as  the  winter  solstice,  its  bearings  are 
often  typically  interpreted  by  the  fathers.*  Thus  the  words  of  John 
Baptist  spoken  of  Christ  (John  iii.  30),  "He  must  increase  but  I 
must  decrease,"  are  applied  to  the  fact  that,  at  John's  birth  in  June 
24th,  or  the  summer  solstice,  the  days  began  to  decrease  in  length, 
but  at  Christ's  birth,  December  25th,  the  days  began  to  increase. 
Thus  Augustine':  Hodie  natus  est  Johannes,  quo  incipiunt  decrescere 
dies  —  eo  die  natus  Ghristus,  quo  crescere. 

While  such  typical  applications  naturally  tend  to  beget  doubts 
whether  the  dates  so  connected  with  the  great  astronomical  epochs  of 
of  the  year  have  any  historic  foundation,  yet  on  the  other  hand  it 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  if  the  25th  December  were  actually  the 
Lord's  birthday,  the  events  preceding  it,  the  conception  of  John,  the 
annunciation  to  Mary,  and  the  birth  of  John,  must  have  taken  place 
nearly  at  the  times  which  tradition  has  assigned.  And  it  deserves  to 
be  considered,  that  the  hour  of  His  birth,  who  is  Lord  of  all,  was 
not  matter  of  accident,  but  divinely  appointed.  What  season  of  the 
year  might  be  most  fitting  to  so  great  an  event,  or  whether,  astro- 
nomically viewed,  the  winter  solstice  has  any  such  fitness,  are  ques- 
tions not  necessary  to  be  answered  here.     It  is  at  least  not  unreasona- 


1  Obeervations  upon  Daniel  and  Apoc. 

^Sepp,  i.  200.    Caspari,  71.    "In  the  first  Christian  centuries  the  25th  December  was 
looked  upon  as  the  day  of  the  winter  solstice." 
»HomO.,  3. 


20  CHRONOLOGICAL   ESSAY. 

ble  to  believe,  that  the  sun  in  its  course  may  typify  Him  who  is  thp 
Sun  of  righteousness,  and  the  year  in  its  seasons  foreshadow  tht 
epochs  of  His  life. 

The  strongest  argument  against  the  2oth  December,  if  the  birth 
be  put  in  749,  is  that  it  leaves  too  little  space  for  the  events  that 
occurred  before  Herod's  death.  This  death  was  about  the  1st  of 
April,  750;  we  thus  have  a  little  more  than  three  months.  In  this 
period  were  tlie  visit  of  the  Magi,  the  presentation  at  the  Temple, 
the  flight  into  Egypt;  how  soon  after  Herod's  death  was  the  return 
from  Egypt,  is  to  be  later  considered.  If,  according  to  general 
tradition,  the  Magi  came  on  the  6th  January  or  13th  day  after  the 
Lord's  birth,  and  the  presentation  was  on  the  40th,  or  early  in  Feb- 
ruary, He  went  down  into  Egypt  about  two  months  before  Herod's 
death.  Those  who  put  the  coming  of  the  JIagi  on  the  6th  January, 
the  flight  into  Egypt  immediately  after,  and  the  presentation  upon  the 
return  after  Herod's  death,  gain  another  month.  If,  however,  we 
follow  the  order  of  most  modern  harmonists,  and  put  the  visit  of  the 
Magi  after  the  presentation  on  the  40th  day,  the  time  of  the  sojourn 
in  Egypt  up  to  Herod's  death  was  a  little  less  than  two  months. 

Those  who  put  the  Lord's  birth  in  747  or  748,  make  the  period 
spent  in  Egypt  much  longer  —  some  three  years,  some  two,  some  one, 
some  six  months.  Those  who  put  the  birth  later  than  the  25th 
December,  749,  and  Herod's  death  in  April,  750,  make  the  sojourn 
but  three  to  four  weeks,  or  less;  Wieseler  and  Ellicott  only  about  a 
fortnight.  There  is  nothing  in  Matthew's  narration,  or  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  that  makes  it  probable  He  Avas  there  more  than  a 
few  weeks.  There  does  not,  therefore,  appear  any  good  reason  w^hy 
all  the  events  he  narrates  may  not  have  taken  place  between  the  25th 
December  and  the  following  1st  of  April. 

Our  inquiries  lead  us,  then,  to  these  general  results.  We  find  it 
most  probable  that  the  Lord  was  born  near  the  end  of  the  year  749. 
At  this  period  all  the  chronological  statements  of  the  Evangelists 
seem  most  readily  to  center  and  harmonize.  In  favor  of  December, 
the  last  month  of  that  year,  as  much  may  be  said  as  m  favor  oT  any 
other,  and  this  aside  from  the  testimony  of  tradition.  As  to  the  day, 
little  that  is  definite  can  be  said.  The  25th  of  this  month  lies  open 
to  the  suspicion  of  being  selected  on  other  than  historic  grounds,  yet 
it  is  not  inconsistent  with  any  data  we  have,  and  has  the  voice  of 
tradition  in  its  favor.  Still,  in  regard  to  all  these  conclusions,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  many  elements  of  uncertainty  enter  into  the 
computations,  and  that  any  positive  statements  are  impossible.  All 
who  have  attempted  the  task,   will  say  with  Bynaeus:    Frustra  hir 


i 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD's  BAPTISM.  21 

omnem  oj)eram  consumi.  It  is  well  said  by  Si)anlicim :  Sed  cum  hac  de 
re  altum  cqnid  Evrmgelistas  sit  silentitim,  nee  ApostoUca'  Ecclesim  vel 
sanctiaiiem,  'Del  praxln  legamus,  causcB  idhil  est,  cur  temere  dejiidamus 
quod  solide  dejiniri  non  potest. 

II.  DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  BAPTISM. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Lord  was  about  thirty  years  old  when  He 
began  His  ministry;  and  as  this  followed  immediately  upon  His 
baptism,  He  was  about  thirty  when  He  was  baptized.  If  born,  as  we 
have  supposed,  at  the  end  of  749,  His  baptism  may  be  put  in  779,  or 
in  780.  The  only  data  we  have  to  determine  the  time  are,  the  year 
of  the  Passover,  which  followed  His  baptism  (John  ii.  13) ;  and  the 
statement  of  Luke,  that  John  began  his  ministry  in  the  fifteenth  year 
of  Tiberius  Caesar  (Luke  iii.  1).  The  other  data  here  given  by  Luke 
are  too  general  to  be  of  value  in  this  inquiry. 

Datum  i. -— 'nie_Lorcrs  first  Passover.  This  we  have  seen  to  be 
that  of  780.  His  baptism  was  some  time  before  this,  how  long 
depends  upon  the  time  necessiiry  for  the  intervening  events.  After 
the  baptism  was  the  temptation  of  forty  days,  the  return  to  the 
Jordan,  and  the  gathering  of  His  first  disciples,  His  visit  to  Cana, 
His  sojourn  at  Capernaum,  and  His  journey  up  to  the  Passover,  which 
fell  this  year  on  the  9th  April.  All  this,  we  may  say,  would  occupy 
about  two  or  three  months.  (Chronicon  Paschale  76  days,  Friedlieb 
87,  Greswell  64.)  Counting  backward  from  the  Passover,  we  may 
then  put  the  baptism  at  the  end  of  779,  or  very  early  in  780. 

Datum  5.  — The  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius.  Before  asking  to 
what  year  of  the  Lord's  life  this  would  bring  us,  we  must  ask  what  is 
meant  by  the  statement,  that  "the  word  of  God  came  to  John  in  the 
wilderness"?  (Luke  iii.  1.)  The  obvious  meaning  is,  that  he  then 
began  his  ministry;  but  because  of  chronological  difficulties,  of  which 
we  shall  soon  speak,  it  has  been  referred  to  other  events  affecting 
directly  the  Lord  Himself  and  His  ministry.  Three  interpretations 
have  had  their  advocates. 

1.  Sanclemente  regards  the  statements  of  Luke  (iii.  1,  2)  as  a 
general  heading  of  his  theme  ^ — the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ. 
He  attempts  to  show  (as  cited  by  Wieseler,  196,  note)  that  the  fif- 
teenth year  of  Tiberius  "no/i  ad  initium  ministerii  Joannis,  non  ad 
iaptismum  a  Christo  -in  Jordane  susceptuni,  sed  ad  ipsins  passionis  et 
crucifixionis  tempus  ipso  evangelista  ditce  atqueinterpreteesse  referendum.'''' 

Browne  (92),  who  makes  the  Lord's  ministry  to  have  lasted  but 
little  more  than  a  year,  adopted  this  explanation  in  a  modified  form. 
"The  heading  of  St.  Luke's  third  chapter  contains  the  date,  not  of 


22  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

the  mission  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  but  of  the  year  of  our  Lord's 
ministry,  especially  in  reference  to  the  great  events  -with  -which  it 
closed."  But  this  interpretation  is  accepted  by  few,  and  is  manifestly 
a  makeshift. 

2.  That  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist  was  the  event  chiefly 
meant,  and  therewith  the  beginning  of  the  Lord's  ministry.  (Matt, 
iv.  13.)  This  was  advocated  by  Wieseler  (Synopsis,  196),  taking 
the  same  ground  as  Sanclemente,  that  Luke's  chronological  statement 
was  a  general  heading  for  all  that  followed.  (In  his  Beitrjige,  177,  he 
has  since  given  up  this  view.)  It  was  accepted  by  EUicott  (104,  note). 
"The  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  coincides  not  with  the  first  appear- 
ance, but  with  the  captivity  of  John."  That  it  was  early  so  under- 
stood, is  said  to  be  shown  by  Eusebius  (iii.  24)  when  he  says,  that 
the  Synoptists  "  only  wrote  the  deeds  of  our  Lord  for  one  year  after 
the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  intimated  this  in  the  very 
beginning  of  their  history." 

3.  That  the  event  referred  to  is  the  Lord's  baptism.  This  is 
advocated  by  Zumpt  (247),  who,  however,  includes  in  this  the 
Baptist's  ministry,  whose  beginning  is  not  defined  by  any  single  act, 
but  which  culminated  in  the  baptism  of  Jesus;  and  for  this  reason,' 
Luke  gives  this  chronological  datum.  (So  Caspari,  110,  who  says  it 
was  not  the  commencement  of  John's  ministry,  but  a  later  call.)  If 
the  Lord  was  baptized  very  soon  after  John's  ministry  began,  the 
fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  might  include  both  events. 

But  it  is  better  to  keep  to  the  obvious  sense  of  the  words,  and  we 
therefore  conclude,  in  common  with  the  great  body  of  chronologists 
and  commentators,  that  Luke  designs  to  refer  the  fifteenth  year  of 
Tiberius  to  the  beginning  of  the  Baptist's  ministry.  How  long  that 
ministry  may  have  preceded  the  Lord's  baptism,  is  to  be  later  considered. 

"We  must  now  turn  to  the  second  point  —  from  what  period  is  the 
fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  to  be  reckoned  ?  Tiberius  was  the  step-son 
of  the  emperor  Augustus,  and  was  formally  adopted  by  him  in  757. 
After  filling  several  high  stations  in  the  civil  and  military  service, 
he  was  associated  with  him  in  the  general  administration  of  the  em- 
pire in  764  or  765.  Upon  the  death  of  Augustus,  on  the  19th  of 
August,  767,  he  became  sole  ruler.  Thus  there  are  two  periods  from 
which  his  rule  or  administration  may  be  reckoned:  that  when  he  was 
associated  with  Augustus,  and  that  when  he  began  to  rule  alone.  To 
which  of  these  periods  does  Luke  refer  ?  If  to  the  former,  the  fif- 
teenth year  of  his  government  was  that  of  779-780;  if  the  latter,  of 
781-782.  If  we  accept  the  latter  date,  and  John  began  his  ministry 
in  August,  the  baptism  of  Jesus  must  be  put  in  782. 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  BAPTISM.  23 

But  wti  have  seen  tliat  the  Lord  was  about  thirty  whea  He  was 
baptized ;  and  as  John  had  been  active  some  time  before,  to  this  the 
period,  longer  or  shorter,  of  his  activity,  must  be  added.  Let  us  then 
say  that  John  began  his  work  in  August  or  September,  781,  and  that 
the  Lord  was  baptized  some  three  months  later,  or  near  the  beginning 
of  782.  But  we  have  accepted,  on  grounds  already  given.  His 
baptism  as  before  the  Passover,  780,  and  have  thus  a  discrepancy  of 
two  years.  Again,  we  have  placed  His  birth  at  the  end  of  749 ;  add 
to  this  thirty  years.  His  age  at  His  baptism,  and  we  reach  779  or  780, 
and  thus  again  there  is  a  discrepancy  of  two  years.  If  born  in  748  or 
747,  He  was  now,  in  783,  thirty-four  or  thirty-five,  which  presents  a 
still  greater  difficulty. 

We  find  here  the  ground  of  the  perplexity  of  the  early  Christian 
chronologists  and  commentators.  Counting  the  fifteenth  of  Tiberius 
from  the  death  of  Augustus,  they  reached  the  year  from  August,  781 
to  August,  783,  as  the  first  of  the  Lord's  ministry,  and  He  was  then 
about  thirty  years  of  age.  (If  Luke  counted,  after  the  Jewish 
method,  from  Nisan  to  JStisan,  this  would  make  little  difference,  since 
from  Nisan  to  August  is  only  five  mouths.)  It  was,  therefore,  neces- 
sary that  they  should  put  the  birth  of  the  Lord  as  late  as  possible, 
and  it  was  very  generally  placed  in  753  in  order  that  He  might  be 
about  thirty  at  His  baptism. 

The  importance  of  this  date,  and  the  many  difficulties  connected 
with  it,  demand  that  we  give  to  it  a  more  particular  examination. 
Three  points  claim  our  attention.  First.  The  fact  of  Tiberius'  asso- 
ciation with  Augustus  in  the  government  of  the  empire.  This  fact 
is  beyond  all  doubt.  The  direct  evidence  is  found  in  Tacitus,  Sue- 
tonius, and  Paterculus,  and  there  are  incidental  allusions  to  it  iu 
several  other  writers.'  Tacitus  says"  "that  on  him  every  honor 
was  accumulated;  he  was  adopted  by  Augustus  for  his  son,  assumed 
colleague  in  the  empire,  and  presented  to  the  several  armies."  He 
relates  also  that  Tiberius,  in  reply  to  the  request  of  the  Senate  to  take 
the  government,  said  that  "Augustus  only  was  capable  of  so  mighty 
a  charge,  that  for  himself,  having  been  called  by  him  to  a  participa- 
tion of  his  cares,  he  had  learned  by  experience  how  difficult  to  bear, 
and  how  subject  to  fortune  was  the  burden  of  the  general  administra- 
tion " —  regendi  cuncta.  In  like  manner,  Suetonius '  says  that  "  Augus- 
tus ordered  that  Tiberius  should  be  named  as  his  colleague." —  collegam 


1  See  Lardner,  i.  355. 

*Ann.,  i.  3.  See  also  i.  7.  '■'■Nam  Tiberius  cuncta  per  consuks  incipiebat,  tanguam 
vetere  republica  et  avibiguus  imperandi.  Ne  edictiim  quidem^  quo  patres  in  curiam, 
vocabat,  nisi  tribaniciae  jwtestatis  praescriptione possit  sub  Augtislo  acceptae.^' 

*  August.,  97. 


24  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

suum  Tiherium  minciqnire  jussit.  He  mentions  also  a  law  promul- 
gated bj'  the  consuls  that  "Tiberius,  jointly  with  Augustus,  should 
rule  in  the  provinces  and  also  take  the  census," — ut  pracincias  cum 
Augusta  communiter  administraret,  simulque  censum  ageret.  Paterculus 
(103),  alluding  to  his  adoption  by  Augustus,  represents  himself  as 
unable  to  describe  the  joy  of  that  day;  the  great  concourse  of  all 
ranks  of  the  people,  and  their  hopes  and  prayers.  He  mentions  also 
the  triumph  due  him  because  of  his  victories  in  Pannonia  and 
Dalmatia,  and  which  was  celebrated  with  great  magnificence,  after 
the  Senate  and  people  of  Rome,  on  a  request  being  made  by  his  father 
that  he  might  be  invested  with  authority  equal  to  his  own  —  ut 
aequum  ei  jus  in  omnibus provinciis  exej'citibusque  esset,  quam  erat  ipsi, 
—  had  passed  a  decree  to  that  effect.  Paterculus  adds,  as  his  own 
comment,  that  it  would  have  been  unreasonable  if  he  could  not  have 
ruled  what  he  had  secured. 

Thus  the  fact  is  abundantly  established  that  Augustus  did  for- 
mally associate  Tiberius  with  himself  in  the  rule  of  the  empire.  At 
his  request,  a  decree  to  this  effect  was  passed  by  the  Senate  and  peo- 
ple. Nor  was  Tiberius  a  colleague  in  name  merely.  Augustus,  very 
aged,  and  now  sinking  under  bodily  infirmities,  was  almost  wholly 
under  the  control  of  his  wife,  the  mother  of  Tiberius,  while  the 
latter  was  in  the  prime  of  life,  active  and  energetic.  In  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  Tiberius,  from  the  time  of  his  colleagueship  the 
recognized  successor  to  the  imperial  throne,  must  have  been  a  con- 
spicuous and  influential  person,  and,  we  may  perhaps  say,  the  emperor 
de  facto,  although  the  name  and  prestige  remained  with  Augustus  till 
his  death.  That  upon  this  event  he  did  not  openly  and  immediately 
act  as  emperor,  but  paid  court  to  the  Senate  as  if  the  Republic  still 
existed,  and  as  if  he  were  irresolute  about  assuming  the  sovereign 
rule,  is  attributable  to  the  peculiar  political  circumstatices  of  the 
times,  and  also  to  his  haughty  temper,  that  chose  rather  to  ascribe 
his  elevation  to  the  voice  of  the  people  than  to  the  intrigues  of  his 
mother,  and  to  the  favor  of  a  weak,  superannuated  old  man. 

Second.  When  was  Tiberius  thus  made  colleague  with  Augustus? 
Most  chronologists  agree  in  placing  the  decree  of  the  Senate,  already 
alluded  to,  near  the  end  of  764  or  beginning  of  765.'  "We  may 
accept  this  as  the  true  date.  Taking,  then,  the  year  765,  from  Jan- 
uary to  January,  as  the  first  of  Tiberius,  the  fifteenth  is  the  year 
779,  from  January  to  January.  Some  time,  then,  in  779,  is  the 
beginning  of  John's  ministry  to  be  placed. 

Third.     Is  it  probable  that  Luke  would  compute  the  reign  of  Tibe- 


igo  Gres.,  Wiesel.,  Licht.,  Rob.,  Sepp. 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  BAPTISM.  25 

rius  from  his  oolleagueship  ?  It  is  admitted  that  the  Roman  histo- 
rians, Tacitus,  Suetonius,  Dio  Cassius,  compute  it  from  the  death  of 
Augustus,  and  that  they  should  do  so  is  easily  explainable,  since  the 
death  of  an  emperor  after  the  order  of  imperial  succession  had  been 
once  established,  formed  a  marked  epoch  from  which  to  count  the 
reign  of  his  successor,  and  was  an  event  interesting  all  parts  of  the 
empire,  and  universally  known.  But  notwithstanding  this,  other 
methods  of  computation,  as  by  consulshijis,  continued  in  use  for  many 
years.  (SeeWies.,  Beitriige,  186.)  It  seems  to  be  unquestionable  that 
a  two-iold  computation  took  place  in  case  of  some  of  the  later  em- 
perors. A  coin  exists  bearing  the  inscription,  "  In  the  eleventh  holy 
year  of  the  government  of  the  emperor  Titus."  As  he  lived  only  two 
years  after  his  father's  death,  the  other  nine  years  must  refer  to  his  joint 
rule  with  his  father.  But  Luke,  writing  not  a  political  but  a  religious 
history,  and  to  whose  purpose  the  succession  of  the  emperors  was  of 
no  moment,  could  well  speak  of  Tiberius  as  de  facto  the  ruler  at  the 
time  and  in  the  region  of  which  he  speaks.  He  was  not  ignorant 
that  there  were  two  modes  of  computing  Herod's  reign,  and  the 
reigns  of  his  sons;  and  whether  he  thought  of  the  sole  rule  of  Tibe- 
rius, or  of  his  co-regency,  would  in  all  likelihood  have  been  determined 
by  the  fact  of  his  residence  at  Rome  or  in  a  province.  As  a  provincial, 
he  would  naturally  see  in  Tiberius  the  acting  head  of  the  empire. 

It  is  said  also  that  there  is  no  proof  that  this  mode  of  computation 
was  known  to  any  of  the  Fathers.  Clemens  of  Alexandria  does,  how- 
ever, mention  that  according  to  one  mode  of  computing  Tiberius  reigned 
twenty-two  years,  which,  if  it  be  not  a  numerical  error,  as  regarded 
by  Zumpt,  284,  indicates  a  two-fold  beginning  of  his  reign.  Whether 
the  Fathers  in  general  were  ignorant  that  the  reign  of  Tiberius  might 
be  reckoned  from  his  co-regency,  is  doubtful.  Lardner  reasons  that 
they  must  have  known  it,  because  as  they  almost  universally  jjlaced 
the  crucifixion  in  the  fifteenth  year,  they  must  have  seen  how  incon- 
sistent it  was  with  Luke's  statement,  who  placed  the  beginning  of 
John's  ministry  in  that  year. 

In  regard  to  Jose^Dhus,  it  has  been  said  that  he  refers  to  the  col- 
leagueship  when  he  states  (Antiq.,  xviii.  4.  6.)  that  "Tiberius  died 
after  he  himself  had  held  the  government  twenty-two  years  — 
iTx^v  avTos  T7)v  dpxvv.  The  most  obvious  construction  of  tiiis  phrase 
is  that  which  refers  it  to  his  sole  administration  in  contradistinction 
to  his  colleagueship.      (Hofmann  in  Licht.,  139.) 

It  is  only  justice  to  any  historian  that  he  should  be  interpreted  so 
as  to  be  consistent  with  himself,  if  possible.  And  he  has  a  higher 
claim  to  this  if  he  shows  himself  in  general,  as  Luke  undoubtedly 

2 


2G  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

does,  to  be  painstaking,  accurate,  and  welliuformed.  Of  the  chro- 
nological data  given  by  Luke  we  must  take  some  leading  one  as  regu- 
lative, with  which  he  clearly  intended  the  rest  to  be  in  harmony. 
If  we  take  the  datum  of  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius,  as  beginning 
at  the  death  of  Augustus,  and  make  it  the  chronological  norm,  we 
cannot  bring  his  other  data  into  harmony  with  it.  He  is  inconsistent 
with  himself,  if  not  self-contradictory.  But  if  we  count  the  iifteentli 
year  from  his  co-regency,  all  his  statements  are  consistent.  As  it  is 
certainly  possible,  not  to  say  very  probable,  that  he  counted  from  this 
period,  the  presumption  is  that  he  did  so,  and  we  find  additional 
proof  of  this  in  the  peculiar  position  of  public  aflfairs. 

It  is  to  be  noted  here  that  the  time  of  Augustus  and  Tiberius  was 
a  transition  period  in  the  government,  and  that  neither  the  principles 
nor  the  forms  of  imperial  succession  were  yet  established.  It  is  said 
by  Merivale  (His.,  iii.  335)  that  Julius  Caesar  permitted  the  senate  to 
decree  that  his  imperatorial  title  should  descend  to  the  adopted  heir, 
but  Octavius  had  carefully  abstained  from  claiming  it  in  virtue  of  his 
descent.  Though  he  became  at  last  absolute  ruler,  yet  he  ruled  under 
republican  names  and  forms,  and  "warily  declined  any  of  the 
recognized  designations  of  sovereign  rule."  Thus  the  time  of  his 
sovereignty  is  dated  from  several  periods.  (Clinton,  Fasti,  iii.  276. 
For  the  gradual  growth  of  his  power,  see  Merivale,  iii.  342.)  Meri- 
vale seems  to  place  it  in  731,  when  he  accepted  the  2)ot€stas  trihinutia, 
and  remarks  that  "this  power  was  justly  considered  the  keystone  of 
the  whole  imperial  edifice.  From  this  period  Augustus  may  deserve 
the  title  of  emperor." 

With  regard  to  tne  imperial  succession,  it  is  said  by  Mommsen  (ii. 
2.  1040)  that  "  a  Roman  emperor  could  not  designate  his  successor. 
The  day  of  the  deatli  of  one  is  not  the  day  of  the  succession  of  the 
other;  who  should  succeed  him  is  to  be  determined  aftier  he  is  dead. 
This  sprung  from  the  old  republican  usages,  for  tlie  empire  was  a 
republic  with  a  monarchical  head.  It  was  from  this  fact  that  a 
co-regency  was  of  so  much  importance,  no  rules  of  succession  being 
established.  A  co-regency  was  the  mode  of  designating  a  successor, 
and  at  first  under  Augustus  conveyed  a  large  degree  of  power.  A 
co-regent  was  nui  the  equal  of  a  jmnceps,  for  there  could  be  but  one 
prince."  (But  see  Wieseler,  Beitrage,  178,  who  says  that  Tiberius 
was  called  princeps  two  years  before  the  death  of  Augustus.)  The 
conferring  of  the  tribunitial  power  upon  Tiberius  was,  says  Merivale, 
"  universally  regarded  as  a  virtual  introduction  to  the  first  place  in 
the  empire;  and  the  pro-consulate  throughout  the  provinces,  decreed 
him  later  by  the  senate,  would  hardly  admit  of  any  other  interpreta- 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD's  BAPTISM.  27 

tion  than  that  the  son  "was  thereby  formally  associated  in  the  empire 
with  his  father."     (iv.  280,  Zumpt,  295,  note.) 

We  cannot,  without  doing  St.  Luke  great  injustice  as  a  historian, 
suppose  him  to  have  been  ignorant  of  a  fact  so  public  and  notorious 
as  that  of  the  association  of  Tiberius  with  Augustus  in  the  empire, 
much  less  of  his  actual  rule  in  the  east;  and  there  is  no  good  reason 
why,  if  knowing  it,  he  should  not  have  taken  it  as  an  epoch  from 
which  to  reckon.  If  the  Italians  dated  his  reign  from  the  emperor's 
death,  that  naturally  followed  from  the  fact  that  the  imperial  authority 
of  Tiberius  during  his  colleagueship  was  little  felt  in  Italy,  his 
administration  being  confined  to  the  provinces.  But  it  gives  a  good 
reason  why  those  in  the  provinces,  especially  of  Asia  Minor  and  Syria, 
should  reckon  from  the  time  when  he  became,  in  regard  to  them,  the 
acting  emperor.  It  is  said  by  Woolsey  (Bib.  Sac,  1870,  333)  that  at 
Rome,  "as  the  government  became  established,  and  imperial  power 
began  to  be  looked  on  as  a  unity,  the  accession  of  an  emperor  on  the 
death  of  his  predecessor  soon  furnished  a  convenient  and  uniform 
date.  Nor  was  it  of  much  significance  to  the  Romans  that  the  man 
next  to  the  emperor  received  an  accession  of  dignity  or  authority. 
But  in  the  provinces  it  was  otherwise.  Investment  with  proconsular 
power,  for  instance,  might  affect  their  welfare,  and  be  a  matter  of 
interest  to  them,  when  it  was  not  so  in  the  central  city.  Hence  such 
computations  might  readily  spring  up  into  use  in  the  east,  as  we 
know  it  to  have  been  true  in  regard  to  the  reign  of  Augustus." 
One  such  reckoning,  departing  from  the  ordinary  date,  is  found  on 
Egyptian  coins,  which  count  the  years  of  Tiberius  from  4  A.D., 
when  he  was  adopted  by  Augustus,  and  invested  with  the  tribunicial 
power  for  five  years.  If  Egypt  counted  his  years  from  the  time 
of  his  adoption,  and  of  his  acquisition  of  tribunicial  power,  with 
much  more  reason  might  this  be  an  era  to  those  who  were  deeply 
affected  by  it.  (See  Wieseler,  Beitriige,  189.)  The  cases  in  all  eastern 
countries  where  the  sons  of  kings  were  associated  with  their  fathers 
in  the  kingdom,  were  so  common,  that  the  double  reckoning  of  their 
reigns  could  not  have  been  anything  unusual.  Indeed,  the  epoch 
from  which  to  date  a  reign  is  often  ])erplexing,  and  brings  no  little 
confusion  into  chronology.  Greswell  (i.  336)  ascribes  the  Evangelist's 
statement  to  "that  scrupulous  regard  to  truth  which  we  should  have 
a  right  to  expect  from  an  insjiired  historian.  He  could  not  deliber- 
ately call  that  year  the  thirteenth  of  Tiberius  which  he  knew  to  be 
really  his  fifteenth." 

Whether,  as  has  been  said,  Luke,  by  the  choice  of  the  word  "reign," 
Tiyewvla  rather  than  (wmpxia  or  jSaa-i'Kela,  designed  to  indicate  this,  is 


2ii  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

uncertain,  but  the  word  is  certainly  ai)plicable  to  a  governmeut 
administered  by  more  than,  one  person.  (See  Zumpt,  296.)  Wiese- 
ler  (Beitrage,  195)  asserts  that  the  term  "  Caesar,"  in  the  formula 
Ti^epiov  Kalcrapos,  is  not  to  be  taken  as  a  family  name,  but  as  an  expres- 
sion of  dignity,  and  to  be  translated,  "In  the  fifteenth  year  of  the 
reign  of  Tiberius  as  Caesar";'  and  that  this,  in  connection  -with  the 
use  of  ijyeiJMvla  instead  of  fwvapxia,  leaves  no  doubt  that  the  co-regency 
of  Tiberius  is  to  be  understood. 

(As  to  coins  and  the  inferences  to  be  drawn  from  them,  seeWiese- 
ler,  Beitrage,  190.  He  accepts  as  genuine  one  of  Autioch  on  which 
Tiberius,  before  the  death  of  Augustus,  is  called  Se^ao-rAs  —  Augustus ; 
contra,  Sevin,  Keil.) 

These  considerations  will,  we  trust,  exculpate  the  Evangelist 
from  all  charges  of  historical  iuaccuracj'.  It  is  plain  that  he  might 
reckon  the  years  of  Tiberius'  reign  from  that  time,  when,  by  his 
father's  desire  and  the  solemnly  expressed  will  of  the  Senate  and 
people,  he  entered  upon  the  exercise  of  imperial  power.  But 
whether,  in  point  of  fact,  Luke  thus  computes,  continues  to  be 
matter  of  dispute.^ 

To  sum  up  our  investigations  upon  this  point,  we  find  three 
solutions  proposed  of  the  chronological  difiiculties  which  the  state- 
ments of  Luke  present.  First,  That  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius 
is  to  be  reckoned  from  the  death  of  Augustus,  and  extends  from 
August,  781,  to  August,  782,  and  that  in  this  year  the  Baptist,  whose 
labors  began  some  time  previous,  was  imprisoned,  but  the  Lord's 
ministry  began  in  780,  before  this  imprisonment,  and  when  He  was 
about  thirty  years  of  age.  Second,  That  the  fifteenth  year  is  to  be 
reckoned  from  the  death  of  Augustus,  but  that  the  statement,  that  the 
Lord  was  then  about  thirty  years  of  age,  is  to  be  taken  in  a  large  sense, 
and  that  He  may  have  been  of  any  age  from  thirty  to  thirty-five 
when  He  began  His  labors.  Third,  That  the  fifteenth  year  is  to  be 
reckoned  from  the  year  when  Tiberius  was  associated  with  Augustus 
in  the  empire,  and  is,  therefore,  the  year  779.  In  this  case  the 
language,  "He  was  about  thirty,"  may  be  strictly  taken,  and  the 
statement,  "the  word  of  God  caiue  unto  John,"  may  be  referred  to 
the  beginning  of  his  ministry. 

Of  these  solutions,  the  last  seems  to  have  most  in  its  favor;  and 


1  See  Winer,  Gram.,  1:38,  trans. 

*In  favor  of  the  computation  from  the  colleagueship.  Usher,  Bengel,  Lardner,  Jarvis, 
Greswell,  Lichtenstein,  Sepp,  Friediieb,  Biicher,  Patritius,  Edersheim,  Zumpt,  Woolsej, 
Weiss;  from  the  sole  reign  of  Tiberius,  Lightfoot,  Meyer,  Ebrard,  Tischendorf,  Ewald, 
Browne,  Ellicott,  Ammcr,  Keil,  Sevin,  Wieseler,  Quandt.  Clinton  says,  '"  We  are  com 
polled  to  conclude  that  St.  Luke  computed  the  years  of  Tiberia"  in  a  peculiar  manner." 


DATE  OF   THE  LORD'S  BAPTISM.  29 

we  shall  assume  that  during  the  year  779,  or  the  fifteenth  year  of 
Tiberius  reckoned  from  his  colleagueship  with  Augustus,  John  began 
to  preach  and  baptize. 

We  have  next  to  inquire  in  what  period  of  the  year  his  labors 
began. 

Datum  1.  —  From  the  fact  that  the  Levites  were  not  allowed  to 
enter  upon  their  full  service  till  tlie  age  of  thirty  (Numb.  iv.  3),  it 
has  been  generally  supposed,  although  there  is  no  express  law  to  that 
effect,  that  the  ])riests  began  their  labors  at  the  same  age.  At  this 
period  the  body  and  mind  were  deemed  to  have  reached  their  full 
vigor.  Hence,  it  has  been  inferred  that  John  must  have  reached  the 
age  of  thirty  ere  he  began  his  ministry.  If  this  inference  be  correct, 
he  began  to  preach  during  the  summer  of  779,  his  birth  having  taken 
place,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  summer  of  749.  We  may,  then,  con- 
clude that  he  entered  upon  his  work  near  the  middle  of  779,  when 
he  was  about  thirty.  If  so,  he  began  to  preach  and  baptize  about 
July  or  a  little  later.  How  long  his  labors  had  continued  before 
Jesus  came  to  him  to  be  baptized,  we  can  but  conjecture.*  That, 
however,  he  had  been  active  for  a  considerable  period,  is  apparent 
from  the  statements  by  the  Synoptists  respecting  "the  multitudes 
that  came  out  to  him  from  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judtea,  and  all  the 
region  round  about  Jordan "  (Matt.  iii.  5 ;  Mark  i.  5 ;  Luke  iii.  7). 
Some  months  at  least  must  have  elapsed  ere  his  fame  could  have 
spread  so  widely,  and  so  many  have  been  drawn  to  him.  And  if 
we  suppose  that  the  larger  part  of  these  crowds  received  the  rite 
of  baptism  at  his  hands,  a  still  longer  period  is  required.  A  body  of 
disciples,  as  distinguished  from  the  multitudes,  had  already  gathered 
around  him  (Acts  xiii.  24).  If  we  add  to  this,  that  at  Christ's  bap- 
tism, his  work  seemed  to  have  reached  its  highest  point,  and  thence- 
forward began  to  decline,  we  cannot  well  estimate  this  period  as  less 
than  some  months  in  duration.  As  John  was  born  six  months  before 
the  Lord,  some  have  said  that  his  ministry  began  six  months  earlier 
(Weiss,  Lewin). 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  some  considerations  that  prevent  us 
from  much  enlarging  this  period.  The  general  belief  of  the  Jews 
that  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  was  near,  and  their  earnest  desire  for 
it,  would  naturally  turn  their  attention  to  John  as  soon  as  he  appeared 
in  public.  His  ascetic  life,  his  energetic  speech,  his  boldness  of  re- 
proof, and  the  whole  character  of  his  teachings,  were  adapted  to  pro- 


'  Caapari,  117,  one  month-  Meyer,  a  very  short  time;  and  Sepp,  that  he  began  his 
ministry  on  the  day  of  atonement,  October  — the  beginning  of  a  new  era  of  years 
DOUinger  and  others  think  that  he  i)ie;iehed  some  months  before  he  began  to  baptize 


30  CHRONOLOGICAL   ESSAY. 

duce  an  immediate  and  powerful  impression  upon  the  people  at  large. 
And  the  frequent  gathering  of  the  inhabitants  from  all  parts  of  the 
land  at  the  feasts,  would  serve  rapidly  to  diffuse  the  tidings  that  a 
new  prophet  had  arisen.  But  as  such  a  phenomenon  as  this  preacher 
in  tlie  wilderness  could  not  long  escape  the  notice  of  the  Pharisees 
and  the  ecclesiastical  rulers  at  Jerusalem,  so  it  could  not  long  remain 
unquestioned.  So  soon  as  his  popularity  became  wide  spread,  and 
multitudes  began  to  receive  baptism  at  his  hands,  they  would  seek  to 
know  who  he  was,  and  by  what  authority  he  instituted  this  new  rite. 
But,  as  appears  from  .John  (i.  19-28),  no  such  formal  inquiry  was 
made  by  the  Pharisees  of  the  Baptist  till  after  the  baptism  of  Jesus. 
Hence  we  may  infer  that  his  ministry  had  not  yet  continued  any  very 
long  period. 

We  may  also  add  that  John's  message,  "  Repent  ye,  for  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  is  at  band,"  was  plain  and  easily  understood.  He  was 
no  teacher  of  abstract  doctrines,  but  a  herald  of  the  Messiah,  and  his 
words  took  immediate  hold  of  men's  hearts.  Thus  his  mission  could 
be  speedily  fulfilled. 

In  view  of  the  above  considerations,  we  conclude  that  John's  min- 
istry, including  a  period  of  preaching  before  his  baptism  began,  may 
have  continued  about  six  months,  when  the  Lord  came  to  be  bap- 
tized.' If  he  was  already  thirty  when  he  began  his  work,  and  his 
birth  be  placed  in  June,  749,  six  months  before  that  of  the  Lord,  he 
began  in  July,  779,  to  preach  in  the  wilderness.  If  about  six  months 
elapsed  ere  the  Lord  came  to  him  at  the  Jordan,  His  baptism  was 
near  the  beginning  of  780.  It  confirms  us  in  this  result,  that  two  or 
three  months  must  have  elapsed  from  the  baptism  of  Jesus  to  the  first 
Passover  (John  ii.  13).  We  rest,  then,  in  the  conclusion,  that  Jesus 
was  baptized  December,  779,  or  January,  780. 

In  the  absence  of  all  other  data,  we  must  here  consider  the  tradi- 
tion that  puts  His  baptism  on  the  6th  of  January.  It  has  already 
appeared  in  our  inquiries  into  the  date  of  our  Lord's  nativity,  that 
both  His  birth  and  baptism,  and  also  the  adoration  of  the  Magi,  were 
originally  commemorated  on  the  same  day,  and  that  this  day  was  the 
6th  of  January.  This  feast  was  called  the  feast  of  the  Epiphany, 
iiTKpdveia  (Titus  ii.  13),  and  commemorated  His  manifestation  to  the 
world.  It  is  uncertain  how  early  the  western  church  distinguished 
the  birth  from  the  other  events  and  commemorated  it  on  anotlicr  day. 
That  the  primary  reference  of  the  Epiphany  was  to  the  baptism  is 
very  probable,  and  that  the  baptism  continued  for  a  long  time 
to  be  the  more  important  of  the  two,  appears  from  the  old  Roman 


5  So  Lightfoot,  Newcome,  and  many. 


DATE   OF   THE   LORD'S   BAPTISM.  31 

Ordo,  where  it  is  said,  quod  secunda  Natiditas  Christi  —  EpipTianm  — 
tot  illustrata  mystei'iis,  honaratwr  est  quam  prima.  (But  see  article 
"Christmas,"  in  Diet,  of  Christian  Antiquities,  Smith  and  Cheetham. 
The  writer  says:  "The  western  church,  so  far  as  we  can  trace 
the  matter  back,  seems  to  have  kept  the  two  festivals  of  the 
Epipliany  and  Nativity  always  distinct.")  After  the  Roman  church 
had  established  the  feast  of  tiie  Nativity  upon  the  25th  December, 
it  still  continued  to  observe  the  6th  January  in  commemoration 
of  the  adoration  of  the  Magi  and  of  the  baptism,  giving,  how 
ever,  more  prominence  to  the  former  than  to  the  latter.'  The  Greek 
Church,  on  the  contrary,  after  it  began  to  observe  the  25th  December 
as  the  day  of  the  nativity,  transferred  to  it  also  the  adoration  of  the 
Magi,  and  commemorated  only  the  baptism  on  the  6th  January.  Thus 
both  the  Roman  and  Greek  Churches  now  agree  in  the  observance  of 
this  day  as  that  of  the  Lord's  baptism. 

If  we  now  proceed  to  ask,  on  what  grounds  this  day  was  selected 
as  that  of  the  baptism,  we  obtain  no  very  satisfactory  answer.  The 
feast  of  the  Epiphany  seems  to  have  been  originally  commemorative 
of  the  baptism  as  the  time  when  the  Lord  was  first  manifested  openly 
as  the  Son  of  God  (Matt.  iii.  16-17);  and  as  He  was  supposed, 
through  a  too  literal  interpretation  of  Luke  (iii.  23),  to  have  been  just 
thirty  years  of  age,  the  day  of  the  baptism  was  also  that  of  the  birth. 
The  same  feast,  therefore,  might  well  embrace  both  events.  After- 
ward, other  events,  coming  under  the  same  general  idea  of  manifest- 
ation, were  included  in  the  commemoration;  the  adoration  of  the 
Magi,  the  first  miracle  at  Cana  of  Galilee,  where  "He  manifested 
forth  His  glory,"  and,  later  still,  the  miraculous  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand.*  As  all  these  events  could  not  have  taken  place  on  the 
same  day  of  the  year,  it  becomes  doubtful  whether  any  of  them  can 
be  referred  to  the  6th  of  January.  The  observance  of  this  day  as 
that  of  the  baptism,  is  first  mentioned  by  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  as 
existing  amongst  the  Gnostic  Basilidians  of  that  city.'  Some  have 
thought  that,  as  the  Egyptians  celebrated  at  this  time  the  feast  Inven- 
tio  Osiridis,  the  Basilidians  adopted  both  the  feast  and  tlie  date  from 
them.  But,  aside  from  other  objections  to  this  Egyptian  origin,*  it 
is  most  improbable  that  the  church  at  large  would  have  borrowed  any 
feast  from  the  Gnostics.  We  may  rather,  with  Neander,*  suppose  it 
to  have  originated  with  the  churches  in  Palestine  or  Syria.  If  so,  the 
selection  of  the  6th  January  may  rest  upon  some  good  basis.     There 


'  See  Missale  Romannm,  in  Epiphatiia  Domini. 

2  See  Dorner.  Christologie,  i.  a84.  3  Guericke  Archaologie,  201. 

*  See  Wieseler,  136.  "  Ch  Hist.,  i.  30a. 


32  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

can  be  no  question  that  the  baptism,  the  secunda  7iutivitas,  wa»  com- 
memorated before  the  nativity  itself.  Beyond  the  simple  fact  that 
the  Epiphany  was  put  on  this  day,  we  have  no  knowledge.  Sepp 
(i.  243),  though  in  general  a  defender  of  tradition,  here  rejects  it, 
and  Jarvis  (467),  at  the  close  of  his  investigations  into  the  matter, 
simply  says  that,  as  there  is  no  testimony  against  it,  there  is  no  im- 
propriety in  considering  the  6th  January  as  the  true  date.' 

But  there  is  an  objection  to  the  month  of  January  drawn  from  the 
climate  of  Palestine  in  the  two  particulars  of  rain  and  cold,  that  de- 
serves to  be  considered.  It  is  said  that  such  multitudes  could  not 
have  gathered  to  John  in  the  mid-winter,  nor  could  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism then  have  been  performed  in  the  cold  and  swollen  Jordan."  We 
must  then  examine  more  closely  the  climatic  peculiarities  of  Judfta  in 
these  respects. 

In  the  inquiry  into  the  date  of  the  Lord's  birth,  we  have  already 
had  occasion  to  speak  of  the  general  character  of  the  seasons.  That 
during  the  winter,  or  rainy  season,  after  heavy  rains  the  traveling  is 
difficult  and  fatiguing,  all  travelers  testify.^  But  the  rains  are  not 
constant.  Beginning  in  October  or  November  they  fall  gradually  and 
at  intervals,  but  become  more  copious  and  frequent  in  December, 
January,  and  February,  and  continue  into  March  and  April.  It  is 
stated  by  Barclay,  that  nine-tenths  of  all  the  rain  falls  in  December, 
January,  February,  and  March.  In  January,  there  are  gushes  of  rain 
and  sometimes  snow,  but  in  the  southern  parts  of  the  land  the  sky 
clears  up  and  there  are  often  fine  days.*  The  rain  comes  mostly  out 
of  the  west,  or  west-northwest,  and  continues  from  two  to  six  days 
in  succession,  but  falls  chiefly  at  night.  Then  the  wind  turns  to  the 
east,  and  several  days  of  fine  weather  follow.  The  whole  period 
from  October  to  March  is  one  continuous  rainy  season,  during  which 
the  roads  become  muddy,  slippery,  and  full  of  holes ;  but  when  the 
rain  ceases,  the  mud  quickly  dries  up,  and  the  roads  become  hard,^ 
though  never  smooth. 

If,  as  we  have  supposed,  John  began  to  preach  in  the  summer, 
perhaps  in  July,  there  is  nothing  in  these  statements  to  lead  us  to  sup- 
pose that  he  suspended  his  labors  when  the  rainy  season  began.  Dur- 
ing the  intervals  of  clear  weather,  at  least,  the  people  continued  to 
gather  to  him.     Besides,  we  cannot  tell  what  was  the  characlcr  of  this 


» So  Bucher,  Friedlieb,  Browne,  Edersheim,  McClellan.  "  About  the  last  half  or 
January."  Greswell.  In  December  or  January.  Lichtenstein  "  In  Tisri.  about  the  feast 
of  Tabeniacles.'"  Lightfoot.  In  November.  Usher.  In  Spring  Clinton  The  7th  of  Oc 
tober  Sepp.    Beginning  of  December,  Patritius.    In  February.  Lewin 

-  So  Robinson,  Sepp.  ^  Thomson   i   'i'X>. 

'Winer,  ii.  692.  *  Herzog's  Encyc.,  xi  23. 


DATE   OF  THE  LORD'S  BAPTISM.  33 

particular  season.  According  to  Thomson  (i.  129),  the  climate  is  "  ex- 
tremely variable  and  uncertain.  I  have  seen  the  rains  begin  early  in 
November  and  end  in  February,  but  they  are  sometimes  delayed  until 
January  and  prolonged  into  May."  We  cannot,  in  a  climate  so 
changeable,  undertake  to  say  that  John  might  not  without  any 
serious  obstruction  continue  to  preach  and  baprize  throughout  the 
whole  rainy  season.  Greswell  (i.  372)  finds  it  specially  fitting  that 
he  should  commence  his  ministry  at  a  time  when  water  was  so 
abundant,  and  affirms  that  "  in  Judtea  the  winter  season  would  be  no 
impediment  to  the  reception  of  baptism."  So  far  as  regards  the  val- 
ley of  the  Jordan,  he  is  in  this  justified  by  the  statements  of  travelers. 
This  valley  lies  so  low  that  the  cold  of  winter  can  scarce  be  said  to  be 
felt  there  at  all.  Especially  is  this  true  of  the  lower  part  of  it,  where 
John  baptized.  Lying  twelve  or  thirteen  hundred  feet  below  the 
level  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  it  has  a  tropical  climate.  Josephus, ' 
speaking  of  the  plain  of  Jericho,  says:  "  So  mild  is  the  climate,  that 
the  inhabitants  are  dressed  in  linen  when  the  other  parts  of  Judaea  are 
covered  with  snow."  Robinson  also  (i.  533),  writing  in  May,  speaks 
in  like  terms:  "The  climate  of  Jericho  is  excessively  hot.  In  trav- 
ersing the  short  distance  of  five  or  six  hours  between  Jerusalem  and 
Jericho,  the  traveler  passes  from  a  pure  and  temperate  atmosphere 
into  the  sultry  heat  of  an  Egyptian  climate."  Porter  describes  the 
air  as  being  "  like  the  blast  of  a  furnace."  Weiss  thinks  that  because 
of  the  heat,  John  could  not  have  fulfilled  his  ministry  in  the  Jordan 
valley  in  the  summer.     (So  Wies.,  Beitrage,  187.) 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  mere  chilliness  of  the  water  of  the  Jor- 
dan running  through  this  deep  hot  valley,  where  snow  or  ice  is  never 
found,  cannot  be  so  great  as  to  prevent  baptism,  even  in  midwinter, 
except,  perhaps,  in  some  very  rare  instances.  Nor  is  this  river  usually 
at  its  highest  stage  till  April  or  May.  As  it  was  in  Joshua's  time  so  is 
it  now.  "Jordan  overfloweth  all  his  banks  all  the  time  of  harvest" 
(Josh.  iii.  15),  or,  as  explained  by  Robinson,  was  full  up  to  all  its 
banks,  "ran  with  full  banks,  or  brimful."  "Then,  as  now,  the 
harvest  occurred  during  April  and  early  in  May,  the  barley  preceding 
the  wheat  harvest  by  two  or  three  weeks.  Then,  as  now,  there  was  a 
slight  annual  rise  of  the  river,  which  caused  it  to  flow  at  this  season 
with  full  banks,  and  sometimes  to  spread  its  waters  even  over  the 
immediate  banks  of  its  channel  where  they  are  lowest,  so  as  in  some 
places  to  fill  the  low  tract  covered  with  trees  and  vegetation  along  its 
sides."'  Thomson  (ii.  453)  speaks  to  the  same  effect,  and  explains 
why  the  overflow  of  this  river  should  be  so  late  in  the  season  as 


1  War,  iv.  8,  -3.  2  Robfnson,  i.  540. 


34  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

jMarch  or  April  after  the  rains  are  all  over.  This  explanation  he 
finds  in  the  fact  that  its  waters  come  from  great  pennanent  springs 
]vin<'-  on  the  southern  declivities  of  Hermon,  and  which  are  not  at  all 
affected  by  the  early  winter  rains.  "It  requires  the  heavy  and  long- 
continued  storms  of  mid-winter  before  they  are  moved  in  the  least ; 
and  it  is  not  till  toward  the  close  of  winter  that  the  melting  snows  of 
Hermon  and  Lebanon^  with  the  heavy  rains  of  the  season,  have  pene- 
trated through  the  mighty  masses  of  those  mountains,  and  filled  to 
ovei-flowing  their  hidden  chambers  and  vast  reservoirs,  that  the 
streams  gush  forth  in  their  full  volume.  The  Iluleh,  marsh  and  lake, 
is  filled,  and  then  Gennesaret  rises  and  pours  its  accumulated  waters 
into  the  swelling  Jordan  about  the  first  of  March." 

That  there  should  be  occasional  floods  in  this  river  after  long- 
continued  rains,  before  the  time  of  harvest,  and  during  the  rainy 
season,  is  to  be  expected,  and  will  serve  to  explain  the  statements  of 
those  travelers  who  found  it  swollen  during  the  autumn  and  early 
winter.  Thus  Seetzen '  states  that  in  consequence  of  a  storm  accom- 
panied with  high  cold  winds,  he  was  compelled  to  remain  from  the 
8th  to  the  14th  January  on  the  bank  before  he  was  able  to  cross. 
Sepp  (i.  240),  who  bathed  in  it  on  the  6th  January,  1846,  found  the 
current  swift  and  the  water  cold.  But  such  occasional  floods  do  not 
affect  the  general  rule,  that  during  the  winter  the  water  remains  at 
its  ordinary  level,  and  begins  to  rise  toward  March,  and  is  highest  at 
the  time  of  harvest.  "All  rivers  that  are  fed  by  melting  snows  are 
fuller  between  March  and  September  than  between  September  and 
March,  but  the  e.xact  time  of  their  increase  varies  with  the  time  when 
the  snows  melt."^ 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  follows  that  so  far  as  the  climate  is 
concerned,  and  the  overflowing  of  the  Jordan,  no  reason  exists  why 
John  may  not  have  been  baptizing  in  midwinter.  That  baptisms  at 
this  season  of  the  year  actually  took  place  in  later  times,  we  learn 
from  the  testimony  of  Felix  Fabri.^*  lie  says  that  the  cloisters  of  St. 
John  on  the  banks  of  the  river  at  the  time  of  the  Abbot  Zozima  were 
inhabited  by  many  monks,  who  about  the  time  of  Epiphany  —  the 
6th  January  —  kept  high  festival  there.  The  Abbot  of  Bethlehem, 
the  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  with  many  monks  and  clergy,  walked 
down  to  the  river  in  solemn  procession,  and  after  a  cross  had  been 
dipped  in  the  waters,  all  the  sick  through  their  baptism  were  healed, 
and  many  miracles  wrought  in  behalf  of  the  pious.  So  in  the  time 
of  Antonius  Martyr  and  Willibaldus,  "  the  annual  throng  of  pilgrims 


»  Cited  in  Ritler,  Theil,  xv.  517.  «  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  i.  1128. 

3  Cited  in  Rittcr,  Theil,  xv.  539. 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  DEATH.  35 

to  bathe  in  the  Jordan  took  place  at  the  Epiphany."  '  It  is  therefore 
perfectly  credible  that  John  may  have  baptized  many,  and  with 
others  the  Lord,  in  the  month  of  January. 

We  may  now  sum  up  the  results  of  our  inquiry.  The  first  Passover 
after  the  Lord's  baptism  was  that  of  780,  and  fell  upon  the  9th  April. 
The  baptism  preceded  this  Passover  some  two  or  three  months,  and 
so  probably  fell  in  the  month  of  January  of  that  year.  John's  minis- 
try began  soon  after  he  was  thirty  years  of  age,  or  about  July,  779. 
Allowing  that  his  labors  had  continued  six  months  before  the  Lord 
was  baptized,  we  reach  in  this  way  also  the  month  of  January,  780. 
Tradition  lias  selected  the  0th  of  this  month  as  the  day  of  the  bap- 
tism, but  we  have  no  positive  proof  that  the  tradition  is  well  or  ill- 
founded.  The  climatic  peculiarities  of  the  country  offer  no  valid 
objections  to  this  date.  Although  there  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  in  December  or  January  Jesus  was  baptized,  yet  the  day  of  the 
month  is  very  uncertain. 

III.  DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  DEATH. 

This  point  is  so  closely  connected  with  the  length  of  His  ministry 
that  we  shall  consider  the  two  together. 

Datum  1. — Let  us  first  ask  in  what  years  the  crucifixion  might 
have  taken  place  ?  The  latest  year  is  defined  by  the  administration 
of  Pontius  Pilate  under  whom  the  Lord  was  crucified.  He  was 
governor  of  Judaea  from  the  middle  of  779  to  789 ;  the  Lord's  death, 
then,  could  not  have  been  later  than  the  year  789.  But,  supposing 
Him  to  have  been  baptized  in  783,  the  latest  possible  period,  as  we 
have  seen.  His  ministry,  if  j^rolonged  to  789,  would  have  continued 
six  or  seven  years,  which  no  one  asserts.  Assuming,  as  most  agree, 
that  His  ministry  was  not  more  than  three  or  four  years,  His  death 
could  not  have  been  later  than  786.  We  have,  thus,  the  years  780- 
786,  in  some  one  of  which  the  crucifixion  must  be  put. 

Having  the  termini,  what  shall  guide  us  in  the  choice  of  the 
year  ?  The  first  and  most  important  datum  is  one  which  astronomy 
gives  us.  The  day  on  which  the  Lord  was  crucified  was  Friday,  as 
appears  from  the  Evangelists.  Joseph  went  to  Pilate  to  obtain  the 
body  of  Jesus  "  when  the  even  was  come,  because  it  was  the  Prepara- 
tion, that  is,  the  day  before  the  Sabbath"  (Mark  xv.  42;  Luke 
xxiii.  54;  John  xix.  42).  That  this  Sabbath  was  the  regular  weekly 
Sabbath  appears  from  all  the  Synoptists  (Matt,  xxviii.  1 ;  Mark  xvi. 
1;  Luke  xxiii.  56).     Jesus  was  crucified  on  Friday,  and  buried  the 


1  Robinson,  i.  546.    Enrly  Travels,  17. 


36  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

same  day,  was  in  the  grave  over  the  Sabbath,  and  rose  on  the  morn- 
ing of  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

Thus,  most  agree  that  the  crucifixion  was  on  Friday,  in  the  month 
Nisan  (Ex.  xii.,  flf.),  but  it  is  in  dispute  whether  this  was  the 
fourteenth  or  fifteenth  of  that  mouth.  If  we  assume  here,  for  the 
moment,  that  the  Lord  died  on  Friday,  the  fifteenth  Xisan,  —  a  point 
to  be  fully  considered  later, —  the  question  before  us  is,  whether  there 
is  any  year,  within  the  possible  range  of  dates,  in  which  the  fifteenth 
day  of  Nisan  fell  on  Friday. 

'  "Two  matters  in  which  the  Jewish  method  of  computation  dif- 
fered from  ours  must  be  distinctly  borne  in  mind :  first,  that  the 
Jewish  day  extended  from  sunset  to  sunset,  and  that,  therefore,  the 
fifteenth  day  of  Nisan  began  at  sunset  on  the  fourteenth  day  and  in- 
cluded what  we  should  call  the  evening  of  the  fourteenth  day ;  and, 
in  like  manner,  the  sixth  day  of  the  week  (Friday)  began  at  sunset 
on  the  fifth  day  (Thursday)  and  included  what  we  should  call 
the  evening  of  Thursday ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  Jewish  month  did 
not  begin  on  the  day  of  the  conjunction  of  the  moon  with  the  sun 
(the  astronomical  new  moon),  but  on  the  day  when  the  new  moon 
was  first  visible  in  the  sky.  It  follows  from  this  last  statement  that 
the  fifteenth  day  of  Nisan  was  not  necessarilj'  the  day  of  the 
astronomical  full  moon,  and  that  no  special  observation  was  made  to 
determine  it;  it  was  simply  two  weeks  after  the  day  when  the  new 
moon  was  first  seen,  or  supposed  to  be  seen,  in  the  heavens. 

The  time  of  a  hmation,  that  is  to  say,  the  interval  between  two 
new  moons,  is  not  far  from  twenty-nine  and  one-half  days.  A  lunar 
month,  according  to  the  time  of  the  new  moon's  appearance,  consists 
of  either  twenty-nine  or  thirty  days.  To  determine  when  the  new 
month  should  begin,  we  are  told  that  the  Sanhedrim  held  a  session 
on  the  day  following  the  twenty-ninth  day  of  each  month.  If  credible 
witnesses  appeared  and  testified  that  they  had  seen  the  moon  on 
the  preceding  evening,  the  Sanhedrim  made  proclamation  that  the 
month  had  ended,  having  been  a  "deficient '"  mouth  of  twenty-nine 
days,  and  the  new  month  was  reckoned  from  the  preceding  sunset. 
If,  however,  there  was  no  satisfactory  testimony  that  the  new  moon 
had  been  seen,  it  was  proclaimed  that  the  new  month  would  begin 
at  the  following  sunset,  the  day  of  the  Sanhedrim's  session  being  the 
thirtieth  and  last  day  of  a  "full"  month;  and  no  further  watch  was 
kept  for  the  new  moon.  [Edersheim,  The  Temple,  etc.,  pp.  169,  sqq. ; 
Stapfer's  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Christ  (trans.),  p.  195.] 

It  may  be  noted  that  in  the  modern  Jewish  calendar  the  beginning 


1  For  the  following  discussion  we  are  indebted  to  Prof.  Hart  of  Trinity  College. 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD's  DEATH.  37 

of  the  months  ib  determined  beforehand  by  astronomical  calculation, 
and  that  the  montli  Nisan  is  not  allowed  to  begin  on  the  second, 
the  fourth,  or  the  sixth  day  of  the  week.  But  it  is  quite  certain  that 
there  was  no  such  limitation  in  the  time  of  Christ.  [Caspari,  Intro- 
duction to  the  Life  of  Christ  (trans.),  p.  195.] 

Now,  when  the  fifteenth  day  of  Nisan  fell  on  Friday,  that  is  to 
say,  when  it  began  at  sunset  on  Thursday,  the  first  day  of  Nisan 
must  also  have  begun  at  sunset  on  Thursday ;  and,  therefore,  either  the 
new  moon  which  determined  the  beginning  of  Nisan  must  have  been 
seen  on  Thursday  evening,  or  else  the  preceding  month  must  have  been 
adjudged  to  have  thirty  days,  and  the  month  must  have  begun  with- 
out any  observation  of  the  moon.  This  latter  supposition,  depending 
upon  the  state  of  the  weather  and  on  other  uncertainties,  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  considered  by  writers  on  the  subject.  Passing 
this  by,  the  question  recurs,  whether  there  is  any  year,  within  the 
possible  range  of  years  within  which  the  Lord's  Passion  must  have 
occurred,  when,  the  sky  being  clear,  the  new  moon  could  have  been 
seen  by  watchful  observers  on  the  evening,  as  we  should  call  it,  of 
Thursday. 

Dr.  Salmon  {Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  ed.  2,  pp.  266- 
267),  giving  a  table  of  the  time  of  the  astronomical  new  moon  for 
each  year  from  A.  U.  C.  780  to  789  (A.  D.  27  to  36)  inclusive,  and 
adding  the  day  when,  in  his  judgment,  the  moon  was  first  visible, 
comes  bo  the  conclusion  that  there  is  but  one  of  these  years,  namely,  the 
year  787,  when  the  new  moon  could  possibly  have  been  first  seen  on 
a  Thursday  evening;  and  in  that  year  he  thinks  it  very  doubtful 
whether  it  could  have  been  thus  seen.  He  holds  that  the  Passion 
was  on  a  Friday,  but  that  it  was  on  the  fourteenth  of  Nisan,  the  day 
before  the  Passover;  and,  being  of  the  opinion  that  the  year  788  was 
the  probable  year,  he  finds  his  views  as  to  the  day  and  the  year 
corroborated  by  the  date  of  the  moon's  first  visibility,  which  he  gives 
as  Friday,  March  24th.  This  would  make  the  fifteenth  day  of  Nisan 
to  have  begun  at  sunset  on  Friday,  April  7th. 

Dr.  Salmon's  great  eminence  as  a  mathematician,  no  less  than  as  a 
theologian,  makes  one  hesitate  to  criticise  his  conclusions;  but  it 
seems  that  they  may  be  fairly  questioned  on  grounds  suggested  by 
Caspari  {op.  cit.,  pp.  14,  sqq.),  who,  nevertheless,  agrees  with  Dr. 
Salmon  as  to  the  day  of  the  Passion.  In  the  year  783  the  moon  was 
in  conjunction  with  the  sun  at  about  eight  o'clock  p.  m.  of  Wednes- 
day, March  22d,  according  to  our  reckoning.  It  is  generally  thought 
necessary  to  allow  some  thirty  hours  after  conjunction,  or  the  time  of 
the  astronomical  new  moon,  before  one  can  expect  to  see  the  moon  in 


38  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

the  heavens;  and  if  thirty  hours  were  required  at  this  time,  the  moon 
could  not  have  been  seen  on  Thursday  evening,  and  the  month  could 
not  have  begun  till  sunset  on  Friday. 

But  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  moon  could  not  have  been 
seen  by  skilled  observers  —  and  such  there  were  at  Jerusalem,  en- 
gaged in  watching  for  the  faintest  crescent  which  should  show  that 
the  moon  had  changed  —  on  Thursday  evening.  The  sun  would  set 
at  about  six  o'clock ;  the  moon,  then  twenty-two  hours  old,  would  be 
nearly  an  hour  behind  it;  and  it  certainly  is  not  impossible,  under 
favorable  circumstances,  to  see  the  moon  when  between  twenty  two 
and  twenty-four  hours  old.  Kepler  informs  us  that  at  Seville,  on 
the  13th  day  of  March,  1553,  the  new  moon  was  seen  about  midday 
at  a  distance  of  ten  degrees  from  the  sun,  that  is  to  say  at  less  than 
twenty  hours  after  conjunction.  "The  whole  city,"  says  he,  "saw 
it  and  bore  witness."  (Kepler's  opna,  ed.  Frisch,  ii.  699,  vi.  488.) 
He  also  says  (vi.  488)  that  the  moon  is  sometimes  seen,  both  old  and 
new,  on  the  same  day,  and  he  thus  interprets  (erroneously)  the  Greeks 
phrase,  ev-rj  Kal  via.  Caspari,  who  refers  to  the  phenomenon  at  Seville, 
tells  us  (p.  15)  that  Americus  Vespuccius  once  saw  the  moon  on  the 
day  of  the  conjunction,  and  —  which  is  more  pertinent  to  the  present 
purpose  —  he  gives  (p.  14)  Jewish  authority  for  the  statement  that, 
under  given  circumstances,  the  moon  may  be  seen  fourteen  hours 
after  conjunction.  It  seems  quite  possible,  therefore,  that  in  the  year 
783,  the  watchers  at  Jerusalem  may  have  seen  the  moon  on  the  even- 
ing of  Thursday,  March  23d,  and  that  therefore  the  first  and  the  fif- 
teenth days  of  Nisan  in  that  year  may  have  began  with  sunset  on 
Thursday  and  ended  with  sunset  on  Friday.  And  in  such  an  argu- 
ment as  this,  the  proof  of  possibility  is  all  that  can  be  required. 

In  the  year  780,  the  time  of  the  moon's  conjunction  was  also  eight 
p.  M.  on  a  Wednesday  (March  26th).  It  is  possible,  therefore,  that  in 
this  year  the  Lord  might  have  sufi"ered  on  the  first  day  of  the  Passover 
being  a  Friday.  But  we  have  other  reasons  for  placing  the  Passion  in 
the  year  783. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  it  is  possible  that  the  beginning  of 
the  month  in  which  the  Lord  suffered  was  not  determined  by  observa- 
tion of  the  moon.  The  uncertainties  which  must  be  caused  in  almost 
any  climate  by  clouds  or  by  disturbed  states  of  the  atmosphere,  are 
such  as  to  make  purely  astronomical  calculations  somewhat  unsatis- 
factory. Yet,  on  the  view  which  is  here  maintained,  the  month 
began  early,  rather  earlier  than  might  have  been  expected;  and  it 
seems,  therefore,  almost  certain  that  the  opening  of  the  Passover- 
month  was  proclaimed  on  the  evidence  of  witnesses  who   declared 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  DEATH.  39 

that  on  the  evening  following  the  fifth  day  of  the  week,  or,  as  they 
would  have  said,  on  the  evening  beginning  the  sixth  day  of  the  week, 
they  had  seen  a  faint  streak  of  light  in  the  west  with  perhaps  the 
outline  of  the  moon's  orb.  If  we  have  reasonable  proof  that,  as  was 
assumed  at  the  beginning,  the  Lord's  Passion  was  on  a  Friday,  which 
was  the  fifteenth  day  of  ]^isan,  and  if  it  is  quite  possible,  without  the 
assumption  of  any  very  extraordinary  phenomenon,  that  the  fifteenth 
day  of  Nisan  fell  on  a  Friday  in  the  year  783,  to  which  year  other 
indications  point,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  fix  upon  that  year  (A.  U.  C. 
783,  or  A.  D.  30)  as  the  year  of  the  Passion  and  the  Resurrection. 

It  may  be  added  that  the  tables  given  by  Browne  {Ordo  Saeclorum, 
p.  55)  are  of  little  value  for  our  purpose,  as  they  are  based  on  astro- 
nomical computations  of  the  time  of  full  moon,  as  if  the  Jews  deter- 
mined in  that  way  the  place  of  the  first  day  of  the  Passover.  But  it 
is  interesting  to  note  that,  according  to  these  tables,  in  the  year  783 
the  moon  came  to  the  full  about  two  hours  before  the  midnight  which 
ended  our  sixth  day  of  April,  or  belonged  to  the  Jewish  seventh  day 
of  April,  which  was  Friday. 

The  error  made  by  Wieseler,  who  forgot  that  the  Jewish  day 
began  with  sunset,  has  been  corrected  both  by  Caspari  and  by  Salmon 
{oi^p.  citt.)  But  Wieseler  also  assumed  that  the  new  moon,  which 
determined  the  beginning  of  Nisan  in  783,  could  not  have  been  seen 
until  Friday  evening,  an  assumption  which  we  have  seen  to  be  unten- 
able. The  two  errors  correct  each  other;  and  we  can  agree  with 
Wieseler's  conclusion  that  the  year  783  was  the  year  of  the  Passion." 

Let  us  see  how  far  this  result  reached  by  Prof.  Hart  will  harmonize 
with  those  already  obtained.  If  the  Lord  was  born  in  749,  or  begin- 
ning of  750,  He  would  have  been  in  April,  783,  about  33  years  old. 
K  He  was  baptized  in  the  beginning  of  780,  He  was  about  thirty 
when  He  began  His  work,  and  His  ministry  continued  about  three 
years. 

If  the  data  given  by  the  Evangelists  were  sufficient  to  determine 
the  length  of  His  ministry,  then,  by  adding  it  to  the  year  of  His  bap- 
tism, we  easily  define  the  year  of  His  death;  but  the  data  are  not  suf- 
ficient. It  has  already  been  shown  that  about  three  months  inter- 
vened between  His  baptism  and  the  Passover  following ;  which  was 
probably  that  of  780,  the  first  of  His  ministry  (John  ii.  13).  Two 
other  Passovers  are  mentioned  by  this  Evangelist  (John  vi.  4,  and 
xi.  56),  the  latter  being  the  last  Passover.  If  there  were  but  three 
Passovers  during  His  ministry,  it  was  only  of  two  years  and  some 
months  duration.  But  John  speaks  of  a  feast  (v.  1)  which  he  does 
not  name,  and  which  many  regard  as  a  Passover;  if  so,  there  would 
be  four  Passovers,  and  His  ministry  extend  a  little  over  three  years- 


40  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

The  point  as  to  this  unnamed  feast  will  be  fully  discussed  in  its 
place.  Assuming  here  that  it  was  a  Passover,  we  reach  the  result, 
that  His  ministry,  computing  from  His  baptism  in  780,  continued 
about  three  years  and  three  mouths. 

Datum  2.  —  Some  have  thought  to  find  a  chronological  datum  in 
the  fact  of  the  darkening  of  the  sun  at  the  time  of  the  Lord's  cruci- 
fixion. As  this  was  upon  the  14th  or  15th  of  Nisan,  and  so  at  the 
time  of  a  full  moon,  it  could  not  have  been  an  eclipse.  But  as  men- 
tion is  made  of  an  eclipse  which  occurred  near  this  time,  some  of  the 
fathers  and  some  moderns  have  sought  to  establish  a  connection 
between  the  two  events.  Phlegon,  of  Tralles,  who  died  about  155 
A.D.,  and  who  wrote  some  historical  works,  of  which  only  a  few  frag- 
ments remain,  relates  that,  in  the  fourth  year  of  the  203  Olympiad,  or 
from  July,  785  to  786,  a  great  eclipse  of  the  sun  took  place,  greater 
than  any  that  had  ever  been  known,  so  that  at  the  sixth  hour  it  was 
very  dark  and  the  stars  appeared.  There  was  also  a  great  earth- 
quake in  Bithynia,  and  a  great  part  of  Nice  was  destroyed.'  This 
statement  presents  several  apparent  points  of  resemblance  to  those  of 
the  Evangelists,  but  a  brief  examination  shows  that  it  cannot  refer  to 
the  darkness  at  the  crucifixion.  Phlegon  speaks  of  an  eclipse ;  had 
he  meant  an  extraordinary  or  supernatural  darkness,  as  said  by  Sepp, 
he  could  scarcely  have  failed  distinctly  to  mention  it.  The  time  also 
of  this  eclipse  is  uncertain,  for  some  of  those  who  have  reported  his 
statement  refer  it  to  the  fourth,  and  some  to  the  second  year  of  the 
202d  Olympiad,  or  to  the  fourth  year  of  the  201st.''  But  the  astron- 
omer Wurm  has  computed  that  only  one  eclipse  took  place  in  this 
Olympiad,  and  that  in  November  24,  782.'  It  seems,  therefore,  that 
Phlegon  has  himself  erred  in  the  date,  or  that  he  wrote  the  first  year 
of  this  Olympiad,  which  has  been  changed  into  the  fourth.  As  it  is ' 
not  mentioned  at  all  by  most  of  the  early  fathers,  it  seems  that  they 
must  have  regarded  it  as  an  ordinary  eclipse,  and  therefore  without 
any  special  relation  to  the  crucifixion.*  Most  moderns  agree  that  it 
is  of  no  chronological  value.* 

Datum  3. —  Some  have  found  ground  for  a  chronological  inference 
as  to  the  time  of  the  Lord's  death,  in  the  assertion  of  the  Pharisees 
before  Pilate  (John  xviii.  31),  "It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man 
to  death."  Lightfoot  (on  Matt.  xxvi.  3)  gives,  as  a  correct  tradition 
of  the  Talmudists,  "Forty  years  before  the  Temple  was  destroyed, 
judgment  in  capital  causes  was  taken  away  from  Israel."      It  is  gen- 


1  For  some  little  differences  in  the  version,  see  Jarvis,  420. 

2  See  Ammcr,  41 ;  Wieeeler,  387.  ^  Winer,  2.  48'-'.  ♦  See  Jarvis,  427. 

6  Winer,  Lichtenstein,  Meyer,  Jarvis,  Greswell.      Sepp  would  prove  from  it  that  the 
crucifixion  was  in  782;  Auinier,  that  it  was  iu  78C. 


DATE   OF   THE   LORD's   DEATH.  41 

erally  agreed  that  the  Temple  was  destroyed  iu  August,  823.  Com- 
puting backward  forty  years,  we  reach  783  as  the  year  when  the  Jews 
lost  the  power  of  inflicthig  capital  punishments.  Hence  it  follows, 
that  if  Christ  had  been  tried  by  them  before  the  year  783,  they  would 
have  had  the  power  of  punishing  Him  with  death,  according  to  their 
own  laws.  His  crucifixion,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  earlier 
than  this  year. 

As  we  have  no  knowledge  how  this  judgment  in  capital  cases  was 
lost  to  the  Jews,  whether  by  the  act  of  the  Romans,  or,  as  Lightfoot 
supposes,  by  their  own  remissness,  we  cannot  tell  how  strictly  the 
"forty  years"  is  to  be  taken.  They  may  be  used  indefinitely,  forty 
being  here,  as  often,  a  round  number.  Little  stress  in  this  uncertainty 
can  be  laid  upon  this  result.' 

Datum  J),. —  Some  find  in  the  parable  of  the  barren  fig-tree  (Luke 
xiii.  6-9),  an  allusion  to  the  length  of  the  Lord's  ministry:  "Behold 
these  three  years  I  come  seeking  fruit  on  this  fig-tree  and  find  none."* 
It  certainly  cannot  be  without  meaning  that  three  years  are  mentioned. 
This  is  ascribed  by  some  to  the  fact  that  so  many  years  must  pass  after 
planting  before  the  tree  can  bear  fruit. ^  But  the  language  shows  that 
fruit  is  sought,  not  after,  but  during  the  three  years.  Some  refer  it 
to  the  whole  period  of  grace  before  Christ.''  But  why  designate  it  as 
three  years  ?  Perhajos  some  three  epoclis  in  Jewish  history  may  be 
meant,  although  it  is  not  clear  what  they  are.  It  is  not,  however, 
improbable  that  Christ's  ministry  is  referred  to.  If  we  suppose  it  to 
have  been  spoken  late  in  782,  His  ministry  beginning  in  780,  this  was 
the  third  year,  and  He  was  not  crucified  till  783.  But  it  cannot  be 
said  that  the  tree  was  actually  cut  down  after  the  expiration  of  the 
one  year  of  grace.  As  a  chronological  datum,  the  mention  of  the 
three  years  has  little  value.  ^ 

Datum  5. —  From  early  times,  many  have  found  a  prophetic 
announcement  of  the  length  of  the  Lord's  ministry  in  tlie  words  of 
Daniel,  ix.  27, —  "  And  He  shall  confirm  the  covenant  with  many  for 
one  week,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  week  He  shall  cause  the  sacrifice 
and  the  oblation  to  cease."  Of  the  fathers,  Browne  says  (77), 
"Others,  comparatively  late  writers,  were  led  by  their  interpretation 
of  Daniel's  prophecy  to  assign  it  a  term  of  three  and  a  half  years." 
This  interpretation  has,  all  along  to  the  present  day,  had  advocates. 
Thus  Lightfoot  (iii.  39),  "He  had  now  three  years  and  a  half  to  live, 
aiid  to  be  a  public  minister  of  the  Gospel,  as  the  Angel  Gabriel  had 


1  Schiirer,  ii.  1.  188,  says  the  date  is  worthless.    Eders.,  ii.  254. 

2  So  Bengal,  Hengstenberg,  Wieseler,  Alford.    '  So  Bloomfield. 

*  So  Grotius,  McKnight.  »  So  Meyer,  Trench,  Kell,  Godet. 


42  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

told  that  in  half  of  the  last  seven  of  the  years  then  named  He  should 
confirm  the  covenant."  It  is  said  by  Browne :  "It  seems  also  to  have 
been  commonly  believed  by  the  ancients  that  the  last  week  of  the 
seventy  includes  the  prcedicatio  Domini  to  the  Jews  for  three  and  a 
half  years  before,  and  the  same  length  of  time  after  the  Passion." 
Greswell  (iv.  406)  maintains  the  same  interpretation.  Vitringa,  with 
whom  Hengstenberg  agrees  (Christology,  iii.  163),  says:  "  His  death 
was  undoubtedly  to  happen  in  the  middle  of  the  last  hebdomad,  after 
the  seven  and  sixty-two  weeks  had  already  come  to  an  end." 

Without  denying  that  the  prophecy  has  reference  to  the  Messiah, 
it  is  questionable  whether  it  is  to  be  so  pressed  as  to  furnish  a  proof 
that  the  Lord's  public  work  continued  just  three  and  a  half  years. 
The  number  of  interpretations  that  have  been  proposed  is  very  great, 
and  there  is  far  from  being  even  now  unanimity  of  opinion.  Thus 
Lightfoot  makes  the  Lord's  own  ministry  to  have  been  three  and  a 
half  years;  Sepp,  twelve  hundred  and  ninety  days;  Greswell  adds 
to  three  years  of  the  Lord's  ministry  half  a  year  of  the  Baptist; 
Browne,  to  one  year  of  the  Lord's  ministry  two  and  a  half  years  of  the 
Baptist.  We  cannot,  under  these  circumstances,  attach  much  chro- 
nological importance  to  it. —  Obscurum  non  jirdbatur  per  obsairivs. 

Computations  as  to  the  year  when  the  seventy  weeks  ended,  as 
bearing  on  the  time  of  the  Lord's  death,  can  be  but  little  relied  on, 
and  need  not  be  considered  here. 

Datum  6. —  Several  recent  attempts  have  been  made  to  determine 
the  year  of  the  Lord's  death  by  the  death  of  the  Baptist.  It  is  said 
with  great  positiveness  that  the  statements  of  Josephus  show  that 
John's  death,  and  therefore  the  Lord's  death,  must  have  been  much 
later  than  is  generally  supposed.  (So  Keim,  Volkmar,  Sevin.)  We 
must,  therefore,  examine  these  statements  to  determine  their  chrono- 
logical value.  They  refer  to  two  points,  the  relations  of  Herod  Antipas 
to  Aretas,  and  his  relations  to  John  Baptist  (Antiq.  xviii.  5,  1). 

The  substance  of  Josephus'  statement  upon  the  first  point  is  that 
Herod  A.  married  the  daughter  of  Aretas,  an  Arabian  king,  and  that 
he  lived  with  her  a  long  time;  but  on  a  journey  to  Rome  he  visited 
his  half-brother  Herod,  living  as  a  private  person,  and  fell  in  love 
with  his  wife  Herodias;  and  she  agreed  to  become  his  wife  if  he 
would  divorce  the  daughter  of  Aretas.  The  latter,  hearing  of  the 
agreement,  jiersuaded  Herod  to  send  her  to  Machaerus,  a  fortress  on 
the  east  coast  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  on  the  borders  of  the  territories  of 
Herod  and  Aretas,  and  then  subject  to  her  father;  and  from  this  point, 
aided  by  his  officers,  she  went  on  to  his  own  capital.  This  treatment 
of  his  daughter  stirred  up  Aretas,  who  also  had  other  causes  of  dissat- 


DATE   OF   THE   LOKD's   DEATH.  '  43 

isfactiou,  and  after  a  time  hostilities  began  which  ended  with  the 
total  defeat  of  Herod  A.  After  this  defeat  he  sought  aid  from  the 
emperor  Tiberius,  who  sent  orders  to  Vitellius,  Governor  of  Syria,  to 
punish  Aretas;  but  the  speedy  death  of  the  emperor  put  a  stop  to 
further  proceedings. 

Upon  the  second  point — ^  John's  imprisonment  and  death  —  Jose- 
phus  says  that  some  of  the  Jews  thought  the  destruction  of  Herod's 
anny  a  just  punishment  for  his  crime  in  putting  the  Baptist  to  death. 
He  gives  as  the  cause  of  Herod's  treatment  of  him  his  fear  that  John 
might  use  his  great  power  over  the  people  to  incite  them  to  rebellion, 
and  therefore  sent  him  a  prisoner  to  Machaerus,  where  he  was  put  to 
death. 

Let  us  now  examine  these  statements  of  Josephus  and  find  what 
light  they  cast  on  the  date  of  the  Baptist's  imj^risonment  and 
death.  In  the  Gospels  we  have  the  following  order  of  events,  but 
without  any  definite  dates ;  the  marriage  of  Herod  A.  and  Herodias, 
the  rebuke  by  John,  the  anger  of  Herod,  John's  imprisonment,  his 
death  through  the  enmity  of  Herodias.  We  know  only  that  John  was 
beheaded  before  the  Passover  (John  vi.  4),  which  was  probably  that 
of  782. 

Let  us  note  the  order  of  Keim  and  Sevin,  derived  as  they 
think  from  Josei^hus  —  the  imprisonment  of  John  at  Machaerus,  be- 
cause Herod  A.  feared  he  would  stir  up  the  people  to  insurrection,  his 
death,  Herod's  divorce  of  his  wife,  and  his  marriage  with  Herodias, 
in  the  same  year,  786 ;  the  death  of  Jesus  was  a  year  later.  (Sevin, 
in  787 ;  Keim,  in  788.) 

Let  us  prove  this  order.  Its  basis  is  the  assumption  that  Josephus 
narrates  events  chronologically,  and  having  mentioned  the  death  of 
Herod  P.  in  786  or  787,  the  twentieth  year  of  Tiberius,  and  in  the 
next  chapter  the  war  of  Herod  A.  and  Aretas,  the  inference  is  drawn 
that  the  marriage  of  Herod  and  Herodias  was  after  the  death  of 
Herod  P.  and  after  the  imprisonment  of  John.  The  statements  of 
the  Evangelists  that  he  was  executed  because  of  the  rebuke  of  their 
marriage,  and  his  death  as  due  to  her  enmity,  are  rejected  as  wholly 
unhistorical.  The  basis  of  all  this,  that  Josephus  has  narrated  events 
in  their  chronological  order,  is  pure  assumption.  In  many  instances 
he  departs  from  it,  and  the  formula  with  which  he  begins  chapter 
five,  "About  this  time,"  is  very  indefinite.  (As  to  the  chronological 
order  of  Josephus  in  general,  see  Ewald,  v.  50.)  As  against  so  late  a 
date  of  the  marriage  of  Herod  A.  and  Herodias  are  their  ages.  She 
must  have  been  some  forty-three  or  four,  and  he  much  older;  a  time 
of  life  when  it  is  not  likely  that  he  would  have  been  so  transjjorted 


44  '  CHRONOLOGICAL   ESSAY, 

by  passion  as  to  incur  the  anger  of  his  j^oople  by  r  marriage  forbidden 
in  the  law,  and  the  dangerous  enuiitj-  of  liis  father-in-law  Aretas. 

Have  Ave  any  other  data  in  Josephus  to  determine  the  time  of  this 
marriage?  One  much  urged  by  Sevin  is,  that  the  divorce  of  his 
daughter  was  the  cause  of  the  war  between  Aretas  and  Herod  A., 
which  ended  in  Herod's  defeat ;  this  defeat  was  probably  in  789,  a 
little  before  the  death  of  Tiberius  in  March,  790.  The  inference  is, 
that  Herod  was  married  to  Herodias  one,  two,  or  three  years  earlier. 
Of  course  all  depends  here  on  the  fact  whether  these  hostilities  and 
Herod's  defeat  were  immediately  after  the  divorce.  Two  circum- 
stances make  against  this:  1.  That  Aretas  had  been  at  enmity  with 
Herod  because  of  boundary  disputes  some  time  before  the  divorce. 
2.  That  both  kings  were  so  under  the  domination  of  Rome  that  they 
could  not  make  war  upon  one  another  at  their  pleasure.  Wieseler 
conjectures  that  not  till  the  Parthian  war,  when  the  Romans  were 
occupied  by  more  important  matters,  did  they  find  a  fit  opportunity  to 
begin  their  contest.     (Ewald  puts  this  defeat  in  787.) 

Another  datum  in  Josephus  on  which  great  weight  is  placed  is, 
that  Aretas  at  the  time  of  the  divorce  was  in  possession  of  the 
fortress  Machaerus,  where  John  was  beheaded.  It  is  said  that  Herod 
could  not  have  sent  John  there,  after  the  divorce  of  his  wife,  and 
marriage  with  Herodias.  If  he  sent  him  there  before,  he  must  have 
been  in  friendship  with  Aretas,  and  the  statement  of  the  Evangel- 
ists, that  John  was  in  prison  because  he  rebuked  that  marriage,  is 
thus  shown  to  be  erroneous.  Tliat  the  statement  of  Josephus  pre- 
sents a  historical  difficulty,  all  admit.  But  it  especially  concerns 
those  who  rely  on  him,  since  the  Evangelists  do  not  say  where 
John  was  imprisoned  and  belicadcd,  and  some  deny  that  Machaerus 
was  the  place  of  his  death.  Cut  admitting  that  Joyephus  is  right, 
how  came  Aretas  in  possession  of  Machaerus?  and  wlint  "kind  of  pos- 
session had  he?  That  it  was  a  most  important  fortress  is  said  by  Jo- 
sephus (War,  vii.  6.  1),  who  gives  a  brief  history  of  it.  This  fortress, 
as  a  chief  defense  of  Perea,  must  have  been  included  in  that  province 
when  Herod  was  made  its  Tetrach.  It  is  certain  that  it  was  not  cap- 
tured from  him  afterwards  by  Aretas,  nor  is  it  likely  that  Herod  gave 
it  up  voluntarily  into  his  hands.  Even  if  their  relations  were  friendly 
up  to  the  time  of  the  marriage  of  Herod  A.  with  Herodias,  yet  we 
canr  Dt  believe  that  Herod  would  give  up  the  strongest,  and  in  some 
respects  the  most  important,  fortress  of  his  dominions,  to  an  ally  who 
might  at  any  time  become  an  enemy. 

The  (piestion  then  arises,  what  kind  of  control  Aretas  may  have 
had  at  Machaerus  at  the  time  of  his  daughter's  fiiiiht  thither?     The 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  DEATH.  45. 

statement  of  Josephus  is  that  Machaerus  was  ' '  tlien  tributary  to  her 
father."  rdre  irarpl  aiiTTjs  vvoTeXrj.  Is  this  equivalent  to  saying  that  it 
was  garrisoned  by  his  soldiers,  and  that  both  the  fortress  and  the  city 
were  under  his  authority  as  a  part  of  his  dominion?  It  is  scarcely 
credible  that  this  could  have  been  the  case,  and,  if  it  were,  how  did 
Herod  regain  possession  of  it?  That  after  the  divorce  of  his  daughter 
Aretas  would  voluntarily  have  restored  it,  is  incredible;  and  if  it  had 
been  recovered  forcibly  by  Herod,  .losephus  would  have  made  some 
mention  of  it.  (This  point  is  discussed  by  Sevin,  93,  who  feels  the 
difficulty  to  be  so  great  that  he  can  solve  it  only  by  supposing  that 
Herod  borrowed  a  dungeon  from  Aretas  in  which  to  imprison  the 
Baptist,  and  that  this  was  before  Herod's  agreement  with  Herodias.) 

The  true  solution  of  the  question  is  probal^ly  to  be  found  in  the 
fact  that,  during  their  period  of  friendship,  Machaerus,  as  a  border 
city,  may  have  been  a  common  meeting  place  for  the  subjects  of  both 
kings,  and  that  Aretas  may  have  had  by  Herod's  gift  some  claims 
for  tribute  from  the  citizens,  and  have  had  military  officials  there  for 
this  purpose.  We  have  seen  that  Josephus  speaks  of  the  distinction 
between  the  city  and  fortress;  the  latter  being  a  rocky  eminence  very 
high,  and  the  city  lying  below  it.  Tristam  (Land  of  Moab,  272),  who 
in  1872  carefully  examined  the  site,  speaks  of  the  ruins  of  the  town  as 
distinguished  from  the  fortress,  "  They  covered  perhaps  a  larger  area 
than  any  site  we  had  yet  visited ;  .  .  .  and  cover  in  solid  mass 
more  than  a  square  mile  of  ground."  He  found  the  remains  of  a 
temple  devoted  to  the  Sun-God,  from  which  he  infers  that  there 
must  have  been  a  large  population  who  were  either  Greeks  or  Syrians. 
Separated  from  the  town  by  a  narrow  and  deep  valley  was  the  fortress 
on  the  top  of  a  conical  hill.  The  citadel  was  on  the  summit  of  the 
cone  which  is  the  apex  of  a  long  flat  ridge.  "The  whole  of  the  ridge 
appears  to  have  been  one  extensive  fortress,  the  key  of  which  was  the 
keep  on  the  top  of  the  cone." 

We  may,  then,  accept  the  view  (in  substance,  that  of  Gerlach, 
Keil,  and  others;  contra,  Schiirer) that  the  citizens  of  Machaerus  paid 
tribute,  on  grounds  which  we  cannot  explain,  to  Aretas  who  had 
military  officials  there,  while  the  fortress  itself  which  commanded 
the  town  was  in  the  hands  of  Herod.  The  order  of  events  may 
have  been  something  like  this:  The  daughter  of  Aretas,  Herod's  wife, 
early  heard  of  her  husband's  agreement  with  Herodias;  and,  without 
revealing  to  him  her  knowledge,  desired  him  to  send  her  to  Machaerus, 
where  she  knew  she  would  find  officials  of  her  father  who  would 
forward  her  on  her  way  to  him.  It  would  seem  from  the  narrative  of 
Josephus  that  the  real  difficulty  was  to    get   from   Machaerus   into 


46  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

Arabia.  But  she  arranged  the  matter  beforebancl ;  and,  apparently 
without  making  anj'  stop  at  Machaerus,  went  on  to  her  father.  It  is 
obvious  that,  if  the  town  and  fortress  had  been  in  the  hands  of  Are- 
tas,  there  was  no  necessity  of  her  hastening  away  from  Machaerus,  as 
she  evidently  did,  to  a  place  where  Herod  could  not  follow  her. 

If  this  be  the  right  solution  of  the  matter,  the  chronological  difS- 
culty,  arising  from  the  possession  of  Machaerus  by  Aretas,  disappears. 
Had  he  possessed  it  at  the  time  of  the  divorce  of  liis  daughter,  and 
later,  we  should  be  compelled  to  put  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist 
either  before  the  divorce  or  several  years  later,  and  thus  contradict 
the  Evangelist's  account.  But,  if  the  fortress  of  Machaerus  was  all 
the  time  in  the  possession  of  Herod,  he  could  have  imjDrisoned  the 
Baptist  there  at  his  pleasure,  whatever  fiscal  claims  Aretas  may  have 
had  on  the  city.  Some  say,  (Wies.,  Beitrage,  13,)  that  Augustus 
ordered  Aretas  to  deliver  up  the  fortress  to  Herod  about  782,  but  of 
this  there  is  no  proof,  and  the  silence  of  Josephus  makes  it  improbable. 
Schiirer  (239)  supposes  that  it  came  into  Herod's  hands  soon  after  the 
flight  of  his  wife,  but  why  Aretas  should  deliver  it  up  does  not 
appear;  Keim  (i.  622),  that  Herod  took  it  from  Aretas  by  force. 

Can  we  get  light  from  any  other  source  as  to  the  time  of  the 
marriage  of  Herod  with  Herodias?  Attempts  have  been  made  to  fix 
the  time  of  that  journey  to  Rome  when  he  met  Herodias.  (Gres.,  iii. 
417;  Wies.  Syn.,  241,  and  Beitrage,  13;  Licht.,  181.)  But  no  satis- 
factory result  is  thus  reached.     (So  Schiirer.) 

But,  if  we  knew  the  year  of  the  marriage,  we  cannot  tell  how 
long  an  interval  may  have  passed  before  the  reproof  of  Herod  A. 
by  John.  It  is  often  said  that  it  must  have  been  very  soon,  while  the 
popular  mind  was  most  stirred  up  (So  "VYiner,  Gres.),  but  this,  by  no 
means,  follows.  The  marriage  may  have  preceded  the  ministry  of 
John  by  a  considerable  interval,  and  that  which  he  denounced  was 
not  merely  the  marriage  act,  but  the  continuance  of  the  marriage 
relation.  When  and  where  he  met  Herod  and  rebuked  him,  we  do 
not  know.  As  regards  the  defeat  of  Herod  by  Aretas,  which  the 
Jews  thought  a  just  judgment  of  God  upon  him  for  the  death  of  the 
Baptist,  we  cannot  infer  that  it  was  immediately  after  John's  death. 
An  interval  of  eight  or  ten  years  would  not  be  so  long  that  the  con- 
nection of  the  two  events  would  be  forgotten.  Keim  says,  one  or  two 
years. 

Nor  do  we  get  any  light  from  the  knowledge  of  the  time  when 
Herod  P.  was  married  to  Salome,  daughter  of  Herodias.  (Josep. 
Antiq.,  xviii.  5.  4.)  If  he  died  about  the  beginning  of  787,  she  may 
have  been  married  to  him  two  or  three  years  b<^fore  his  death.  Her 
age  at  this  time  is  unknown,  but  computations  <^ounded  on  the  prob- 


DATE   OF   THE  LORD'S   DEATH.  47 

able  year  of  her  birth  make  her  age  to  have  been  about  twenty.  She 
is  called  by  the  Evangelist  (Matt.  xiv.  11)  a  damsel  —  Kopd<nov, — 
which  implies  that  she  was  not  more  than  twelve  or  fifteen  at  the 
"Baptist's"  death.  (As  to  the  average  age  of  females  at  marriage, 
Gres.,  iii,  415.) 

To  sum  up  what  we  learn  from  Josephus  in  this  matter  of  the 
time  of  John's  death,  he  gives  us  two  dates, —  the  death  of  Herod 
Philip  in  787,  and,  inferentially,  the  defeat  of  Herod  A.  in  789. 
Neither  of  these  dates  helps  us  in  our  chronological  inquiry.  We  do 
not  learn  from  him  when  Herod  A.  went  to  Rome,  when  he  married 
Herodias,  when  he  was  reproved  by  the  Baptist,  when  the  latter  was 
imprisoned,  or  when  he  was  beheaded.  All  inferences  as  to  the  date 
of  the  Lord's  death  from  the  death  of  John,  are  without  basis.  The 
historical  difficulty  as  to  the  possession  of  Machaerus  by  Aretas  is  one 
which  our  present  knowledge  does  not  enable  us  to  solve. 

If  Josephus  does  not  help  us  in  this  inquiry  as  to  the  time  of 
John's  death,  what  other  data  have  we? 

The  chief  one  is  the  statement,  in  John  vi.  4,  that  a  Passover 
took  place  a  little  after  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand.  "And 
the  Passover,  a  feast  of  the  Jews,  was  nigh."  This  Passover, 
the  third  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  was,  as  we  have  seen,  that  of  782, 
and  fell  on  the  17th  of  April,  and  the  death  of  John  was  a  few  days 
before  this;  the  exact  interval  we  cannot  tell,  as  we  do  not  know  how 
long  his  death  preceded  the  feedhig  of  the  five  thousand,  nor  how 
long  this  feeding  preceded  the  Passover.  If  John  was  beheaded  at 
Machaerus,  some  days  must  have  elapsed  ere  his  disciples  could  bury 
his  body,  and  come  to  inform  Jesus.  So  far  as  this  datum  goes,  we 
may  place  his  dcatli  in  the  latter  part  of  March  or  the  beginning  of 
April,  782. 

Wieseler  and  others  have  attempted  to  reach  a  more  definite  result 
from  the  statements  of  Matthew  (xiv.  6)  and  Mark  (vi.  21)  that 
Herod  gave  order  for  the  death  of  John  at  a  feast  held  by  him. 
"And  when  Herod's  birthday  came,"  etc.  The  word  translated  birth- 
day —  yeviffia  —  found  only  in  this  passage,  is  generally  understood 
in  its  later  usage  as  meaning  a  birthday  festival  or  celebration.  (See 
T.  G.  Lex.  sub  voce.  So  Rob.,  Meyer,  01s.,  Alex.,  Keil,  Bleek, 
Farrar.) 

If  it  be  so  used  here  by  the  Evangelists,  it  gives  us  no  chronologi- 
cal datum,  since  we  do  not  know  the  time  of  Herod's  birth.  But 
Wieseler  (Syn.  292)  would  understand  it  of  the  feast  kept  in  honor  of 
his  accession  to  the  throne,  and  in  this  way  obtain  a  known  date, — 
the  8th  Nisan  or  11th  April,  782,  as  the  day  of  John's  execution. 


48  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAY. 

Greswell  (iii.  425),  who  also  supposes  that  Herod  was  celebrating  his 
accession  on  the  grounds  that  "the  day  of  a  king's  accession  was 
both  considered  and  celebrated  as  his  birthday,"  and  that  the  magnifi 
cence  of  his  entertainment  (Mark  vi.  21)  shows  that  he  w^as  com- 
memorating more  than  his  birthday,  reaches  the  result  that  John  was 
put  to  death  about  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  September  22,  781. 
(With  Wieseler,  in  the  meaning  of  yev^cna,  agrees  Elli.,  195;  Ebrard; 
Eders.,  i.  672,  note;  Caspari,  undetermined.) 

It  is  obvious  that  this  datum  does  not  give  us  any  certainty  as 
to  the  time  of  John's  death. ' 

We  conclude  that  this  enquiry  as  to  the  time  of  the  Baptist's  death 
leads  to  no  sure  results,  and,  therefore  does  not  help  us  as  to  our  main 
enquiry,  the  time  of  the  Lord's  death.  (The  other  questions  which 
arise  respecting  the  imprisonment  and  death  of  John,  will  be  con- 
sidered in  their  place.) 

From  this  survey  of  the  several  data  respecting  the  time  of  the 
Lord's  death,  we  conclude  that  none  lead  us  to  positive  results.     If 
'it  were  certain  that  the  Friday  on  which  He  was  crucified  was  the 
15th  of  Nisan,  there  would  be  strong  probability,  if  not  absolute  cer- 
tainty, that  the  year  was  that  of  783.     If,  however,  it  was  the  14th 
of  Nisan,  as  many  affirm,  this  datum  fails  us,  and  we  have  to  choose 
between  the  years  780  and  786.     The  computations  based  upon  the 
daikening^^f^the-Siin  at^  His^jirucifijd^  upon  the  loss  of  power  to 
inflict  capital  punishmeiitJ^lJlH-JS^!  "pon_th^j)arabl£j)iJhfiJ}iiixetL 
^fig^mTTirpmrthe  prophetic  half-weekj)fJ3j]jjiel,jaJid  upon,ti:adit4on,- 
ire_all  Jnconclusive.  _  It   is   rather  by   a   comparison   of    the   sev- 
eral  phrnnolnginnl    sectuvna_in    the   gospels  jadth   one— apotiicr.   and 
rith  the   results   of   astronomical   calculations,    that  we   reach   the 
rell-grounded  conclusions ^hat  the  Lord  died  at  the  Passover  in  the 
[ear  783.     The  day  of    the  crucifixion,    whether   the   14th   or    15th 
[isan  of  that  year,  will  be  the  subject  of   examination  when  His 
death  is  spoken  of. 

Into  the  mazes  of  patristic  chronology  we  are  not  called  to  enter, 
still  a  brief  survey  of  early  opinions  will  not  be  without  its  value. 
(See  the  very  full  investigations  of  Patritius  iii.,  Diss.  19;  Greswell  i. 
438;  Zumpt,  Gel)urtsyahr,  3  ff.)  We  find  three  distinct  views  prev- 
alent. First,  that  which  makes  the  Lord's  ministry  to  have  continued 
one  year,  and  the  whole  length  of  His  life  about  thirty  years.  This  view 
first  comes  to  our  notice  among  the  Valentinians,  who  put  the  Lord's 
death  the  twelfth  month  after  His  baptism.     Among  the  orthodox, 


'■John's  death  is  variously  placed  by  harmoni«ts  in  the  years  778-786. 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  DEATH.  49 

Clemens  of  Alexandria  (t220)  is  the  earliest  defender  of  this  view.  It 
is  placed  mainly  upon  Scriptural  grounds,  much  stress  being  laid 
upon  Isaiah  Ixi.  3,  quoted  by  the  Lord  (Luke  iv.  19),  its  advocates 
understanding  "the  acceptable  year"  to  be  the  one  year  of  His  min- 
istry. Others  refer  to  Exodus  xii.  5.  Haec  omnium  vetudisshna 
opinio,  says  Scaliger.  Among  those  who  adopted  it  in  substance, 
were  TertuUian,  Origen,  Lactanius,  and  perhaps  Augustine;  although 
TertuUian  is  by  no  means  consistent  in  his  statements,  Origen  seems 
to  have  changed  his  opinion,  and  Augustine  is  doubtful. 

Second.  That  which  makes  His  age  at  His  deatli  to  have  been 
between  forty  and  fifty,  but  leaves  the  length  of  the  ministry  unde- 
termined. Of  this,  Irenaeus  (t202)  was  the  first  defender,  although  it 
appears  from  Augustine  that  there  were  others  later  that  held  it.  In 
proof,  two  passages  in  John's  Gospel  were  cited  (viii.  57  and  ii.  20). 
From  the  former  it  was  inferred  that  He  was  more  tlian  forty,  and 
from  the  latter  that  He  was  just  forty-six,  as  the  temple  of  His  body 
had  been  so  long  in  building.  Irenaeus,  arguing  against  the  Valen- 
tinians,  shows  from  the  mention  of  three  Passovers  by  this  Evangelist, 
that  the  Lord's  ministry  was  more  than  a  year,  but  how  long  he  does 
not  determine. 

Third.  That  which  makes  His  ministry  to  have  continued  from 
two  to  four  years,  and  His  whole  life  from  thirty-two  to  thirty -four 
years.  Of  this  view  Eusebius  (Hist.  i.  10,  "not  four  entire  years  "), 
Epiphanius,  and  Jerome  were  the  earliest  representatives. 

The  early  fathers  were  not  wholly  unaware  of  the  uncertainty  of 
their  chronology,  and  several  of  them  state  that  they  had  not  the  data 
for  a  conclusive  judgment.  Irenaeus  says:  "We  cannot  be  ignorant 
how  greatly  all  the  fathers  differ  among  themselves,  as  well  concern- 
ing the  year  of  the  Passion  as  the  day."  Again:  "Concerning  the 
time  of  the  Passion,  the  diversities  of  opinion  are  infinite."  Augustine 
says,  that  except  the  fact  that  He  was  about  thirty  at  His  baptism,  all 
else  is  obscure  and  uncertain.  TertuUian,  as  we  have  said,  is  in- 
consistent with  himself,  and  now  makes  His  ministry  to  have  con- 
tinued one  year,  and  now  three ;  now  puts  His  baptism  in  the  fifteenth 
year  of  Tiberius,  and  now  in  the  twelfth.  Some  began  early  to  put 
His  death  in  the  sixteenth,  others  in  tlie  seventeenth  or  eighteenth, 
and  finally  in  the  nineteenth  of  Tiberius. 

One  point,  however,  in  patristic  chronology  may  here  be  noticed, 
the  early  and  general  belief  that  the  Lord  was  crucified  in  782.  It  is 
well  known  that  almost  all  the  fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries, 
particularly  the  Latins,  accepted  this  date  (Ideler  ii.  412).  Greswell 
remarks  (i.  439) :  "I  am  persuaded  that  during  the  first  two  centuries 


60  CHRONOLOGICAL   ESSAY. 

no  Christian  doubted  of  the  fact  that  our  Lord  sviffered  in  tlie  fifteenth 
or  sixteenth  year  of  Tiberius."  This  date,  782,  is  first  naentioned  by 
Tertulliau  (t243),  who  says:  "The  Lord  suffered  uuder  Tiberius 
Caesar,  C.  R.  Geminus  and  C.  F.  Geminus  beiny  consuls,  on  the  eighth 
day  before  the  calends  of  April  "  (35  March).  On  what  grounds  does 
this  statement  rest?  Is  it  on  a  wrong  interpretation  of  Luke's  word 
(iii.  1)  that  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  (August,  781-782)  is  to  be 
understood  as  the  year  of  the  Saviour's  death?  This  is  inexi)licable, 
since  if  He  died  March  25,  782,  His  ministry  continued  only  some  six 
or  seven  months ;  which  is  received  by  none.  And  if  He  died  in  the 
sixteenth  year  of  Tiberius,  as  some  fathers  said.  His  ministry  was  but 
little  more  than  a  year.  They  must  have  seen  this  brief  duration  of 
His  public  life  to  be  in  direct  contradiction  with  the  statements  of 
the  Evangelist  Johu,  who  mentious  at  least  three  Passovers,  making 
His  ministry  to  continue,  at  the  shortest,  two  years. 

On  what  grounds  Tertullian  connects  His  death  with  the  consul- 
ship of  the  Gemini,  we  do  not  know,  but  probably  because  they  were 
consuls  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius.  In  this  case  we  get  no 
chronological  aid.  The  statement  that  Pilate,  like  all  the  procura- 
tors, was  accustomed  to  send  to  Rome  an  account  of  his  proceedings, 
and  sent  an  account  of  the  Lord's  trial  and  crucifixion  —  ea  omnia, 
super  Ghristo  Pllatas  Gaesari,  tune  Tiberio,  nuntiavit  —  which  was 
open  to  inspection  in  the  Roman  archives,  and  known  to  Tertullian ; 
though  not  in  itself  improbable,  is  generally  questioned.  (It  is  main- 
tained by  Greswell,  i.  440;  Brown,  72;  and  Miiller,  Pmithis  Pilate, 
Stuttgart,  1888.  See  Tisch.,  Pilati  circa  Christum  Judicio,  1855.) 
Aside  from  this,  was  there  any  independent  tradition  as  to  this  date? 
It  is  affirmed  by  some  that  the  church  at  Jerusalem  had  thus  pre- 
served a  knowledge  of  the  year,  but  there  is  no  sufficient  proof  of 
this.  It  seems  unlikely  that  all  the  conclusions  of  the  early  fathers 
rested  solely  on  a  misunderstanding  of  Luke's  statement.  Three  so- 
lutions of  the  difficulty  are  proposed  by  Ideler:  1.  That  the  Lord's 
ministry  continued  only  a  year.  2.  That  Luke  (iii.  1)  designates  the 
time  of  John's  death.  3.  That  Luke  computes  the  fifteenth  year  of 
Tiberius  from  his  co-regency.  This  last  solution  makes  the  Evan- 
gelist wholly  consistent  with  himself,  but  was  he  so  understood  by 
the  fathers  ? 

We  add  a  brief  survey  of  opinions  as  to  the  length  of  his  ministry. 
The  first  is  that  which  limits  His  ministry  to  a  single  year,  or  a  year 
and  some  months.  As  has  been  said,  this  was  a  very  early  opinion 
in  the  church.  This  early  opinion  has  been  recently  defended  by 
Browne  in  his  07-do  Saecli/rum  (p.  92),  who  finds  only  two  Passovers 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  DEATH.  51 

in  John.  On  the  other  hand,  Lewin  finds  five,  and  a  ministry  of  four 
years.  MacKniglit  supposes  that  the  Lord's  public  work  may  have 
been  prolonged  more  than  five  years  comjilete.'  "Nay,  it  may  have 
been  several  yeai's  longer,  on  the  supposition  that  there  were  Pass- 
overs in  His  ministry,  of  which  there  is  neither  direct  mention  made, 
nor  any  trace  to  be  found  in  the  history." 

Rejecting  the  extremes  of  either  case,  our  choice  must  lie  between 
H  ministry  embracing  three,  and  one  embracing  four  Passovers;  some- 
times called  the  Tripaschal  and  Quadripaschal  theories.  The  former 
has  many  advocates,  but  labors  under  many  difficulties,  which  will 
be  pointed  out  as  we  proceed.  (Among  its  advocates  are  Wieseler, 
Godet,  Pressense,  Ellicott,  Caspari,  Dolliuger,  Tischendorf,  Farrar, 
and  others.)  On  both  internal  and  external  grounds  we  are  led  to 
choose  the  latter,  and  to  give  to  His  ministry  a  duration  of  a  little 
more  than  three  years.  Placing  His  death  in  April,  783,  His  public 
life,  if  it  be  dated  from  the  purgation  of  the  Temple,  continued  just 
three  years,  if  from  His  baptism,  three  years  and  about  three  months, 
or  from  .January,  780,  to  April,  783. 

It  will  be  noted  that  many  of  those  w^ho  put  the  Lord's  death  in 
783,  hold  to  a  two  years'  ministry,  making  the  first  Passover  (John 
ii.  13)  that  of  781. 

^  We  accept,  then,  as  probable  conclusions,  that  the  I-ord  was  born^ 
December^  ^749;  baptized  January,  780;  crucified  April  7,  783; 
length  of  ministry,  three  years  and  three  months.  That  the  25th 
December  and  6th  January  were  the  days  of  the  nativity  and  baptism, 
rests  wholly  upon  tradition. 
\  For  comparison,  we  add  the  various  dates  of  the  Lord's  death, 
which  have  found  recent  advocates :  781,  Jarvis;  783,  Browne,  Sepp, 
Clinton,  Patritius,  Ideler,  Zumpt;  788,  Wieseler,  Friedlieb,  Greswell, 
Tischendorf,  Bucher,  Ellicott,  Thomjison,  Riggenbach,  Lichtenstein, 
Caspari,  McClellan,  Edersheim,  Godet;  784,  Hales,  Paulus;  786, 
Ebrard,  Ammer,  Ewald. 


1  Harmony,  Preliminary  Obs, 


52  CHRONOLOGICAL   ESSAY. 

We  give  for  convenience  the  years  of  Rome  from  745  to  795,  with 
the  corresponding  years  B.  C.  and  A.  C. 


Year  of 
Rome. 

Year 
B.C. 

Year  of 
Rome. 

Year 
A.C. 

Year  of 
Rome. 

Year 
A.C. 

Year  of 
Rome. 

Year 
A.C. 

745 

9 

757 

4 

770 

17 

783 

30 

746 

8 

758 

5 

771 

18 

784 

31 

747 

7 

759 

6 

772 

19 

785 

32 

748 

6 

760 

7 

773 

20 

786 

33 

749 
750 

5 
4 

761 

762 

8 
9 

774 
775 

21 
22 

787 
788 

34 
35 

751 

3 

763 

10 

776 

23 

789 

36 

752 

2 

764 

11 

777 

24 

790 

37 

753 

1 

755 

12 

778 

25  " 

791 

38 

A.c. 

766 

13 

779 

26 

792 

39 

754 

1 

767 

14 

780 

27 

793 

40 

755 

2 

768 

15 

781 

28 

794 

41 

756 

3 

769 

16 

782 

29 

795 

43 

THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LOED. 


PART  I. 

FROM  THE  ANNUNCIATION  TO  ZACHARIAS  TO  THE  BAPTISM  OF 
JESUS ;  OR,  FROM  OCTOBER,  748,  TO  JANUARY,  780,  6  B.  C.  — 
27  A.  D. 


8-9  October,  748.     6  b.  c. 

Near  the  end  of  the  reigu  of  Herod  the   Great,  King  of    Luke  i.  5-32. 
Judaea,  an  angel  was  sent  by  God  to  Zacharias,  an  aged  piiest 
of  the  course  of  Abia,  whilst  ministering  in  the  Holy  Place,  to 
announce  to  him  the  birth  of  a  son,  who  should  be  the  fore- 
runner of  the  Messiah. 

The  chronological  value  of  this  statement  has  been  already- 
considered  in  the  essay  on  the  date  of  the  Lord's  birth. 

Some  of  the  fathers  supposed  that  Zacharias  was  the  high 
priest,  and  that  the  services  in  which  he  was  engaged  were 
those  of  the  great  day  of  atonement,  upon  the  10th  of  Tisri.' 
But  there  is  no  ground  for  this.  Zacharias  is  called  only  a 
priest,  not  high-priest,  and  was  a  member  of  one  of  the  twenty- 
four  courses;  which  the  high-priest  was  not.  He  was  also 
chosen  by  lot  to  burn  incense  upon  the  golden  altar  in  the  Holy 
Place  ;  but  the  high-priest's  duties  upon  this  day,  as  at  other 
times,  were  prescribed  by  law,  and  could  not  be  given  him  by 
lot.  Besides,  the  latter  must  reside  at  Jerusalem,  but  the 
residence  of  Zacharias  was  in  some  neighboring  city.''  Accord- 
ing to  Edersheim  (i.  135),  it  was  the  morning  service,  and  this 
was  the  first  time  in  his  life  in  which  he  had  offered  incense. 
(See  Temple  Service,  129.) 


iSo  Chrysostom,  Ambrose;  see  Williams'  Nativ.,  23;  Maldonatus,  in  loco. 
•Greswell,  i.  382;  Patritius,  iii.  8. 

i  53  ) 


54  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  L 

OcTOBEE,  748  — March,  749.      6-5  b.  c. 

Returning,  after  bis  course  had  completed  its  ministry,  to    Luke  i.  23-25. 
his  own  house  in  the  hill-country  of  Judah,  his  wife  Elisa- 
beth conceived  a  sou  and  spent  the  five  months  following  in 
retirement. 

The  home  of  Zacharias  was  "  a  city  of  Judah  "  in  "  the  hill- 
country,"  or  mountainous  region  of  Judah  (Luke  i.  39,  65). 
But,  as  the  name  of  the  city  is  not  mentioned,  several  cities 
have  contended  for  the  honor  of  John's  birthplace.  Many  have 
supposed  Hebron  to  be  meant,  a  city  very  ancient  and  very 
conspicuous  in  early  Jewish  history.'  A  Jewish  tradition  also 
gives  this  as  John's  birthplace.''  The  objection  of  Caspar!  (55) 
that  Hebron  was  in  the  territory  of  Idumgea,  and  no  priestly 
family  would  dwell  there,  is  not  important.  Aside  from  this, 
its  claims  rest  chiefly  upon  the  fact  that  it  was  a  priestly  city, 
and  upon  the  form  of  expression  in  Joshua  (xx.  7;  xxi.  11), 
where  it  is  described  as  being  "in  the  mountain"  and  "in  the 
hill-country  of  Judah." 

Some  have  contended  for  Jutta,  the  Juttah  of  Joshua  (xv.  55), 
regarding  Juda,  'loijda,  (i.  39)  as  an  erroneous  writing  of  Jutta,  'loMa, 
or  'lo&ra.  This  view,  first  suggested  by  Reland  (870),  although 
wholly  unsupported  by  any  manuscript  authority,  has  found  many 
advocates.^  The  modern  Jutta  is  described  by  Robinson  (iii.  20()), 
who  saw  it  from  a  distance,  as  "  having  the  appearance  of  a  large 
Mohammedan  town  on  a  low  eminence,  with  trees  around."  It  is 
about  five  miles  south  of  Hebron,  and  was  one  of  the  priestly  cities 
(Josh.  xxi.  16).  But,  granting  the  identity  of  the  Juttah-  of  Joshua 
with  the  modern  city,  this  adds  nothing  to  the  proof  that  it  was 
John's  birthplace;  and  the  fact  that  there  is  no  tradition  of  that 
kind  amongst  the  inhabitants,  nor  any  local  memorials,  seems  to  make 
strongly  against  it.     Keil  reads  it:  "a  city  of  the  tribe  of  Judah." 

Those  who  made  Zacharias  to  be  high  priest,  and  so  necessarily 
resident  near  the  temple,  supposed  Jerusalem  to  be  the  city  meant, 
but  this  has  now  no  advocates. 

An  ancient  tradition  designates  a  small  village  about  four  miles 
west  of  Jerusalem  as  the  home  of  Zacharias.*  It  is  now  called  by 
the  natives  Ain  Karim,    and  is  thus  described  by  Porter  (i.   233) : 


•SoBaronius,  Lightfoot,  Ewald,  Sepp,  Weiss,  Geikie,  Farrar,  Sevin, 

» Winer,  1.  58G.  sjytter,  Raumer.  Robinson,  Patritius. 

*See  Early  Travels,  287  and  461. 


Part  I.]  ZACHARIAS  AND  ELISABETH.  55 

"Ain  Karim  is  a  flourishing  village,  situated  on  the  left  bank  of 
Wady  Beit  Hanina.  In  the  midst  of  it,  on  a  kind  of  platform,  stands 
the  Franciscan  convent  of  St.  John  in  the  Desert.  The  church  is 
large  and  handsome,  and  includes  the  site  of  the  house  of  Zacharias, 
where  St.  John  BajJtist  was  born.  It  is  in  a  kind  of  grotto  like  all 
the  other  holy  places,  and  is  profusely  ornamented  with  marble,  bas- 
reliefs,  and  paintings.  In  the  center  of  the  pavement  is  a  slab  with 
the  inscription,  Hie  Praecursor  Domini  natus  est.  About  a  mile 
distant  is  the  place  known  to  the  Latins  by  the  name  of  the  Visita- 
tion. It  is  situated  on  the  slope  of  a  hill,  where  Zacharias  had  a 
country  house.  Tradition  says  that  the  Virgin  Mary,  on  her  visit, 
first  went  to  Elisabeth's  village  residence;  but,  not  finding  her  there, 
proceeded  to  that  in  the  country,  where  accordingly  took  place  the 
interview  related  in  Luke  i.  39-55.  The  spot  is  marked  by  the  ruins 
of  a  chapel,  said  to  have  been  built  by  Helena.  About  one  mile 
farther  is  the  grotto  of  St.  John,  containing  a  little  fountain,  beside 
which  the  place  is  shown  where  he  was  accustomed  to  rest."  (See 
also  Pic.  Pal.,  204.) 

Ain  Karim  has  found  a  recent  supporter  of  its  traditionary  claim 
in  Thomson,  who  finds  no  reason  ' '  why  the  home  of  the  Baptist 
should  be  lost  any  more  than  the  site  of  Bethlehem  or  Bethany  or 
Nazareth  or  Cana."  (Cen.  Pal.,  57.)  Tobler,  however,  traces  these 
traditional  claims  of  Ain  Karim  only  to  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth 
century.  According  to  Raumer,  a  still  older  tradition  designated 
Beth  Zacharias  as  the  place  of  John's  birth.  Caspar!  advocates 
Khirbet  el  Yehud  in  Wady  Bittir.  See  Baed.,  376.  The  point  is  in 
itself  of  very  little  importance.  We  need  not  infer,  as  some  have 
done  (so  Meyer),  from  the  Evangelist's  silence,  that  he  was  ignorant 
where  Zacharias  lived,  but  only  that  he  did  not  think  it  important  to 
mention  it. 

That  Elisabeth  left  her  own  house,  and  went  to  some  obscure 
dwelling,  where  she  might  be  hidden  from  all  observation  for  a 
time,  is  not  improbable;  yet  the  text  is  consistent  with  the  sup- 
position that,  continuing  at  home,  she  withdrew  herself  from  the 
eyes  of  visitors. 

March  —  April,  749.     5  b.  c. 

In  the  sixth  month  of  Elisabeth's  conception,  the  angel  Luke  i.  26-38. 
of  the  Lord  was  sent  to  Nazareth,  a  city  in  GaHlee,  to  a  virgin 
named  Mary,  who  was  betrothed  to  a  man  named  Joseph,  of    Matt.    i.    20. 
the  house  of  David,  to  announce  to  her  that  she  should  be  the 
mother  of  the  Messiah. 


56  THE   LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  I 

The  most  important  point  that  meets  us  here  is  the  relation 
of  Mary  to  the  house  of  David,  Was  she  of  that  royal  family? 
But  before  we  consider  it,  let  us  sum  up  what  is  known,  either 
from  the  Gospels  or  from  tradition,  of  the  personal  history  of 
Joseph  and  of  Mary. 

Joseph  is  distinctly  declared  by  Matthew  to  have  been  of 
the  house  of  David  through  Solomon,  and  his  genealogical  reg- 
ister, going  back  to  Abraham,  is  given  (Matt.  i.  1-17).  In  his 
dream  the  angel  addresses  him  as  "the  son  of  David  "  (verse 
20).  So  by  Luke  (i.  27)  he  is  said  to  be  of  "  the  house  of  David  " 
(also  ii.  4).  He  was  thus  of  royal  descent,  though  occupying  a 
humble  position  in  society.  His  calling  was  that  of  a  rm-iov,  or 
carpenter,  or,  as  the  word  may  mean,  any  worker  in  wood.'  He 
was  generally  believed  by  the  early  Church  to  have  been  an  old 
man  at  the  time  he  was  espoused  to  Mary,  and  is  so  represented 
in  the  earliest  paintings  of  the  Holy  Family.^  In  later  pictures 
he  is  represented  as  younger,  and  from  thirty  to  fifty  years  of 
age.  Accoi'ding  to  Epiphanius,  he  was  more  than  eighty; 
while  in  the  Apocryphal  Gospel,  Historia  Josephi,^  he  is  said 
to  have  been  ninety,  and  his  age  ill  years  at  the  time  of  his 
death.  It  is  not  improbable  that  he  may  have  been  considerably 
older  than  Mary,  as,  though  alive  twelve  years  after  Christ's 
birth  (Luke  ii.  42),  his  name  is  not  afterward  mentioned;  a 
circumstance  most  easily  accounted  for  upon  the  supposition  that 
he  was  dead  before  the  Lord  began  His  ministry.  Some  have 
inferred  from  Luke's  words  (ii.  51),  that  He  was  subject  unto 
His  parents,  that  Joseph  lived  till  He  had  reached  manhood. 
Tradition  also  relates  of  him  that  he  was  a  widower,  and  the 
father  of  four  sons  and  two  daughters.  This  jooint  of  a  prior 
marriage  will  be  considered  when  we  come  to  inquire  who  were 
the  Lord's  brethren. 

Of  Mary,  the  Gospels  give  us  even  less  information  than  of 
Joseph.  In  Matthew,  her  name  only  is  mentioned,  and  no  allu- 
sion is  made  to  her  family  or  lineage.  In  Luke,  she  is  simply 
spoken  of  as  a  virgin  ;  and  only  incidentally  is  it  mentioned  that 
Elisabeth,  the  wife  of  Zacharias,  was  her  "cousin,"  or  relative, 


>  Thilo,  Codex  Aiioc.  308,  note.  -  Jameson,  Legends  of  the  Madonna. 

8  Thilo,  Code.x  .\poc.,  361,  note;  Ilofmann,  62. 


Part  1.]  THE   MOTHER  OF  THE  LORD.  57 

avyyevr]q  (i.  36),  "a  blood  relation  on  her  mother's  side  "  (Eders. 
i.  149),  in  R.  V.  "kinswoman."  Some  have  inferred  from 
this  that  Mary,  like  Elisabeth,  was  of  the  tribe  of  Levi ;  but  her 
mother  may  have  been  of  this  tribe,  or  the  mother  of  Elisabeth 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah.'  But  the  silence  of  the  Gospels  is  amply 
compensated  by  the  fullness  of  tradition.''  We  thus  learn  that 
she  was  the  daughter  of  Joachim  (Eliachim  or  Eli)  and  of  Anna, 
her  father  being  of  Nazareth,  and  her  mother  of  Bethlehem. 
They  seem,  however,  to  have  resided  at  Jerusalem,  as  the  Church 
of  St.  Anne  is  said  to  have  bee"n  built  over  the  grotto  which 
was  the  birthplace  of  the  Virgin.^  Yet  another  tradition  makes 
them  to  have  resided  at  Seffurieh,  a  village  a  few  miles  north  of 
Nazareth.*  Many  fables  are  related  of  the  miracles  heralding 
her  birth,  of  her  education  at  Jerusalem  in  the  Temple,  of  her 
vow  of  perpetual  virginity,  and  of  her  marriage  to  Joseph.* 
That  she  was  young  at  the  time  of  her  marriage,  we  may  infer 
from  the  fact  that  females  were  married  in  the  East  at  a  very 
early  age,  generally  from  fourteen  to  seventeen,  and  often  ear- 
lier.^ The  Apocryphal  Gospels  make  her  to  have  been,  some 
twelve,  and  some  fourteen,  when  betrothed  to  Joseph.  The  lat- 
ter was  more  generally  received  in  later  times,  though  a  few 
theologians  make  her  to  have  been  twenty-four  or  twenty-five 
when  Jesus  was  born,  ut  perfecfa  maier  perfectum  filiuvi  gigneref 
No  allusion  is  made  in  any  of  the  Evangelists  to  her  parents,  or 
to  any  brothers,  but  Mary,  the  wife  of  Cleophas,  is  spoken  of  as 
her  sister  (John  xix.  25),  though  this  relationship,  as  we  shall 
hereafter  see,  has  been  called  in  question. 

From  the  statements  of  Luke  (i.  26  ;  ii.  4),  we  naturally 
Infer  that  both  Joseph  and  Mary  resided  at  Nazareth  at  the 
time  of  the  Annunciation.  But  some  have  maintained  (see 
Meyer)  that  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  statements  of  Matthew 
(ii.  22,  23),  which  show  that  he  then  dwelt  at  Bethlehem.  But 
there  is  nj)  real  discrepancy.     None  of  the  Evangelists  tells  us 

1  (See  Bleek  in  loco;  a  Lapide,  Luke  iii.  23,  says  thatMatthan  had  two  daughters,  Soba 
and  Anna,  and  a  son  Jacob.  Soba  was  mother  of  Elisabeth,  the  mother  of  the  Baptist, 
and  of  Anna,  mother  of  the  Virgin  Mary.) 

-  Hofmann,  5.  »  Robinson,  i.  233.  *  Robinson,  ii.  346. 

5  See  Apocryphal  Gospels,  Baronius,  Sepp.  In  W.  and  W.  Kirchen  Lex.  vi.  815,  these 
are  rejected  as  unworthy  of  credence  and  without  papal  sanction. 

•  Greswell,  i.  398.  '  Hofmann,  52. 

3* 


58  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  1 

where  Joseph  lived  before  he  was  espoused  to  Mary.  Matthew, 
relating  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  birth  of  Christ 
(i.  18-25),  makes  no  allusion  to  the  place  where  they  occurred. 
He  does  not  mention  Nazareth  or  Bethlehem.  Afterward,  in 
connection  with  the  visit  of  the  Magi  (ii.  1),  he  speaks  of  Beth- 
lehem as  His  birthplace,  and  we  may  infer  that  Joseph  intended 
to  return  thither  from  Egypt  after  Herod's  death.  But  the 
direction  of  the  angel  to  him  was  to  return  to  ''  the  land  of 
Israel,"  and  probably  he  came  first  to  Judaea,  but  by  divine 
direction  he  was  made  to  changfe  his  puirpose,  and  go  and  dwell 
at  Nazareth.  All  this  proves  nothing  respecting  his  previous 
residence  at  Bethlehem.  Matthew  relates  only  the  fact  that  the 
child  was  born  there ;  Luke  tells  us  how  it  happened  that  this 
was  His  birthplace.  Matthew  implies  that  it  was  Joseph's  pur- 
pose to  return  there  from  Egypt,  but  unable  to  do  so  he  went  to 
Nazareth  ;  why  to  this  obscure  village,  unless  it  had  been  his 
former  residence,  does  not  appear.  Luke  states  only  that  leav- 
ing Bethlehem  he  went  to  Nazareth.  The  only  ground  for  sup- 
posing that  Joseph  had  formerly  resided  in  Bethlehem'  is  found 
in  his  purpose  to  return  thither;  but  this  is  easily  explained  as 
springing  from  the  desire  to  rear  the  child  of  David's  line  in 
David's  city.  That  he  had  no  possessions  there  is  apparent  from 
Luke's  statement  respecting  the  circumstances  of  Mary's  con- 
finement. The  only  interest  that  Matthew  takes  in  Nazareth  or 
Bethlehem  is  from  the  connection  in  which  these  two  cities  stand 
to  the  Messianic  prophecies  (ii.  5-6,  23).  In  itself  it  was  of 
no  moment  to  him  where  either  Joseph  or  Mary  had  lived  before 
the  birth  of  Jesus,  nor  indeed  after  it,  except  so  far  as  their  res- 
idence was  His. 

We  now  turn  to  the  question  of  the  Davidic  descent  of  Mary. 
If  we  set  aside  for  the  present  the  genealogical  table  in  Luke 
(iii.  23-38)  as  of  doubtful  reference,  there  is  no  express  declara- 
tion that  she  was  of  the  house  of  David.  The  supposition  that 
Luke  i.  2 7, refers  to  her,  though  formerly  defended  by  many,  and 
lately  by  Wieseler,^  is  very  doubtful.^     Some  have  supposed  that 


»  See  Upham,  "  Thoughts  on  the  Holy  Gospels,"  p.  215. 

2  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1845;  Beltiasc,  143;  so  Keil. 

«  Against  it,  Beiigel,  Meyer,  Patritius,  Alford,  Fairbairn,  Godet. 


Part  L]  MARY   OF   THE  HOUSE  OP  DAVID.  59 

she  went  with  Joseph  to  Bethlehem  at  the  time  of  the  taxing  (Luke 
ii.  5),  because  she,  like  him,  was  a  descendant  of  David.'  This 
journey,  however,  may  be  explained,  as  will  soon  appear,  on 
other  grounds.^  This  silence  respecting  Mary,  contrasted  with 
the  prominence  given  to  the  Davidic  descent  of  Joseph,  has  led 
many  to  suppose  that  the  Evangelists  attached  no  importance  to 
2ier  lineage,  but  only  to  her  conjugal  relation  to  him.  As  his 
wife  she  became  a  true  member  of  David's  family.  Her  child 
belonged  to  him  according  to  the  principle  which  lay  at  the 
foundation  of  marriage  amongst  the  Jews,  that  what  was  born 
of  the  wife  belonged  to  the  husband.  As  it  had  no  human 
father,  and  as  he  adopted  it,  it  became  in  fact  his,  and  inherited 
whatever  rights  or  privileges  belonged  to  Davidic  descent. 
Since,  then,  through  His  legal  relationship  to  Joseph,  Jesus  could 
truly  be  said  to  be  of  the  house  and  lineage  of  David,  it  was 
wholly  unimportant  to  specify  the  family  of  Mary.^  That  she 
was,  however,  in  fact  of  David's  line,  is  maintained  by  most  who 
regard  the  fact  as  in  itself  unimportant,  or  not  proved.* 

"When  we  compare  the  very  remarkable  declarations  of  the 
prophets  respecting  the  Messiah,  as  the  son  of  David,  with  their 
historical  fulfilment  as  recorded  by  the  Evangelists,  it  may  at 
first  appear  that  they  refer  to  Him  rather  as  the  adopted  and 
legal  son  of  Joseph  than  as  the  son  of  Mary.  Had  His  descent 
through  His  mother  been  regarded  as  the  true  fulfilment  of  the 
prophetic  predictions,  and  of  the  covenant  with  David,  would 
the  Evangelists  have  passed  it  by  without  distinct  mention  ? 
We  might  therefore  infer  from  their  silence  respecting  Mary's 
delation  to  David,  that  they  regard  her  royal  lineage  as  not 
essential  to  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  Joseph  had  a  good  title 
to  the  throne,  and  Jesus  as  his  son  stood  in  his  stead,  the  right- 
ful Heir  of  aU  the  Covenant  promises.^ 

1  So  Robinson's  Harmony,  186;  Mill,  209:  "The  words  distinctly  indicate  that  Mary 
accompanied  Joseph  for  the  purpose  of  being  enrolled  herself." 

2  Patritius  finds  in  Mary's  supposed  vow  of  perpetual  virginity  a  proof  that  she  was  an 
heiress,  and  married  to  Joseph  as  a  kinsman. 

3  So  lately  Da  Costa,  Fairbaim. 

*  A  legal  proof  is  given  by  Upham  (203).  He  afBrms  that  Mary's  marriage  with  a 
descendant  of  David  proves  her  Da\idic  descent,  since  as  a  prince  he  could  intermarry 
only  with  a  princess.    So  Patritius. 

^  So  Da  Costa,  who  supposes  Mary  to  have  been  of  the  tribe  of  Levi.  See  contra 
Spanheim,  Dubia  Evangelica,  i.  128,  against  Antonius,  who  defends  this  %iew.  See  also 
an  able  paper  on  this  side  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra  of  April,  18G1,  by  G.  McClelland. 


60  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  I 

The  question  of  the  Davidic  descent  of  Mary  thus  regarded 
becomes  one  of  secondary  interest,  as  no  promise  of  God  is  made 
dependent  upon  it.  But  if  we  take  higher  ground  and  seek 
more  than  a  legal  relationship,  there  is  good  reason  to  beUeve 
that  she  was  of  the  royal  family,  and  that  thus  Jesus  was  in 
every  sense  the  son  of  David.  Peter  at  Pentecost  (Acts  ii.  30) 
declared  that  in  Him  was  fulfiDed  the  oath  wliich  God  sware 
to  David,  "that  of  the  fruit  of  his  loins  according  to  the  flesh 
He  would  raise  up  Christ  to  sit  on  his  throne."  This  language, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  phraseology  of  the  original  prom- 
ise (2  Sam.  vii.  12),  "I  will  set  up  thy  seed  after  thee  which 
shall  proceed  out  of  thy  bowels,"  seems  to  point  to  Jesus  as  his 
lineal  descendant.  The  words  of  Paul  readily  bear  the  same 
interpretation  (Acts  xiii.  23) :  "  Of  this  man's  seed  hath  God 
according  to  His  promise  raised  unto  Israel  a  Saviour,  Jesus." 
Again,  he  says  (Rom.  i.  3);  "Which  was  made  of  the  seed 
of  David  according  to  the  flesh."  (See  also  Isaiah  xi.  1 ;  2  Tim. 
ii.  8;  Heb.  vii.  14;  Rev.  xxii.  16.)  In  the  words  of  the  angel 
to  her  (Luke  i.  32),  "the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  Him  the 
throne  of  His  father  David,"  it  is  intimated  that  as  her  son  He 
was  son  of  David,  and  so  heir  to  the  throne.  (See  also  Luke  i. 
69.)  That  one  should  sit  on  the  throne  of  David  did  not  make 
hun  in  any  real  sense  a  son  of  David. 

The  prominence  given  by  Matthew  to  the  Davidic  descent  of 
Joseph,  and  his  silence  respecting  the  family  of  Mary,  finds  a 
ready  explanation  in  the  peculiarities  of  his  Gospel  as  designed 
for  the  Jews.  Its  very  first  sentence  gives  the  clue  to  its  riglit 
understanding:  "The  book  of  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ, 
the  son  of  David,  the  son  of  Abraham."  He  aims  to  show  that 
Jesus  is  the  heir  of  the  two  great  Jewish  covenants,  that  with 
Abraham  and  that  with  David.  To  this  end  he  must  establish 
first,  that  Joseph,  Jesus'  legal  father,  was  of  David's  house,  and 
so  a  lawful  heir  of  the  dignity  promised  in  the  covenant  ;  sec- 
ond, that  Jesus  stood  in  such  relation  to  Joseph  as  Himself  to 
have  legal  claim  to  all  promises  belonging  to  the  latter.  He 
therefore  brings  prominently  forward  in  the  beginning  of  his 
Gospel  the  fact  that  Joseph  was  of  royal  lineage,  and  cites  his 
genealogical  register  in  proof.     To  have  said  that  Mary  was  of 


Part  I.]  MARY   OF   THE   HOUSE  OF  DAVID.  61 

the  house  of  David,  and  to  have  cited  her  genealogy,  would  have 
availed  nothing,  as  it  was  a  rule  of  the  Rabbins,  and  one  univer- 
sally recognized,  that  "  the  descent  on  the  father's  side  only 
shall  be  called  a  descent  ;  the  descent  by  the  mother  is  not 
called  any  descent."  '  He  could  not  therefore  speak  of  Jesus  as 
son  of  Mary,  even  had  it  been  generally  known  that  she  was  of 
David's  line,  for  as  such  He  had  no  royal  rights.  It  was  only 
as  the  son  of  Joseph  that  He  could  be  the  heir  of  the  covenants. 
Matthew  must  therefore  bring  forth  clearly  the  legal  relation  in 
which  Jesus  stood  to  Joseph  as  his  adopted  son,  but  for  his  pur- 
pose it  was  wholly  unimportant  who  his  mother  was.  Hence  he 
says  very  little  of  Mary,  mentioning  only  her  name,  and  without 
any  explanatory  remarks  except  respecting  her  relation  as  a  be- 
trothed virgin,  but  says  much  of  Joseph.  His  silence,  therefore, 
so  easily  explained  from  the  character  of  his  Gospel,  respecting 
Mary's  lineage,  proves  nothing  against  her  Davidic  descent. 

In  our  examination  of  this  point  it  should  be  remembered 
that  from  the  earliest  period  the  testimony  of  the  Church  has 
been  that  Mary  was  of  David's  family.^  This  was  a  matter  of 
fact  about  which  the  Apostles  and  early  Christians  could  not 
well  have  been  ignorant ;  and  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  such  a 
belief,  if  not  well  founded,  could  have  become  so  early  and  uni- 
versally prevalent. 

The  allusion  (Luke  i.  36)  to  kinship  between  Mary  and 
Elisabeth  determines  nothing  respecting  the  tribe  of  the  former, 
as  the  term  used  denotes  simply  kindred  or  relationship,  without 
defining  its  degree.  As  all  the  tribes  might  intermarry,  Mary 
might  have  been  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  though  Ehsabeth  was  of 
the  tribe  of  Levi.  It  was  early  said  that  the  Lord  was  both  of 
kingly  and  priestly  descent,  by  Joseph  on  the  one  side  and  Mary 
on  the  other.^     But  this  has  no  foundation. 

Thus  we  find  sufficient  grounds  aside  from  the  genealogical 
table  of  Luke  to  regard  Jesus  as  the  son  of  David  through  His 
mother.  Yet  the  question,  to  whom  does  this  table  refer,  is  one 
of  no  little  interest,  as  well  as  difficulty,  and  worthy  of  our  care- 
ful examination. 


1  Da  Costa,  474.  2  Meyer  on  Matthew,  i.  17. 

8  Testamentum  xii.  Patriaichum,  in  Lardner,  ii.  330.    Hofmann,  7. 


62  THE   LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  I. 

The  fact  that  there  should  be  two  genealogies  of  Jesus  given  is  in 
itself  a  remarkable  and  perplexing  one,  and  the  most  obvious  explana- 
tion is  that  presented  by  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  His  birth.  As 
the  legal  son  of  Joseph,  the  genealogy  of  His  father  must  be  given; 
as  the  son  of  Mary  and  without  any  earthly  father,  her  lineage 
becomes  His.  Yet  in  point  of  fact  this  explanation  in  early  times 
found  few  or  no  advocates;  the  general  opinion  being  that  both 
tables  were  those  of  Joseph.'  But  how  could  the  same  person  have 
two  such  differing  lines  of  ancestors?  Three  chief  modes  of  reconcil- 
ing them  have  been  presented :  by  the  law  of  adoption ;  by  the  law  of 
Levirate  marriages;  and  by  plurality  of  names.  The  common  answer 
is  that  which  combines  the  first  and  third  of  these  modes,  and  which 
refers  the  table  of  Matthew  to  the  legal  successors  of  the  throne  of 
David,  and  that  of  Luke  to  Joseph's  paternal  ancestors.''  The  former 
gives  those  who  were  the  legal  heirs  to  the  kingdom.  The  Hoe  of 
Solomon  failed  in  Jechonias  (Jer.  xxii.  30),  and  the  right  of  succes- 
sion then  passed  over  to  the  line  of  Nathan  in  the  person  of  Salathiel. 
From  Joseph,  a  younger  son  of  Jvidah,  or  Abiud  of  that  line,  Joseph, 
the  husband  of  Mary,  traced  his  ;en\  '  The  family  of  the  elder 
son  becoming  extinct,  Matthan,  eph's  grandfather,  became  the 
heir.  This  Matthan  had  two  sons,  Jacob  and  Heli.  The  elder  Jacob 
had  no  sou,  but  probably  a  daughter,  the  Virgin  Mary.  The  younger 
Heli  had  a  son  Joseph,  who  thus  became  both  heir  to  his  uncle  and 
to  the  throne.  Thus  Mary  and  Joseph  were  first  cousins,  and  the 
genealogical  tables  have  equal  reference  to  both. 

Both  tables  were  referred  to  Joseph  by  Africanus  (230  A.D.), 
whose  solution  of  their  difficulties  by  the  law  of  Levirate  marriages  is 
given  by  Eusebius  (i.  7).  It  supposes  that  Melchi  and  Matthan, 
Joseph's  grandfathers  in  the  two  genealogies,  the  one  being  of  the 
family  of  Nathan,  the  other  of  the  family  of  Solomon,  had  married 
successively  the  same  woman,  Estha,  by  whom  the  former  had  Eli, 
and  the  latter  Jacob.  Eli  and  Jacob  were  thus  brothers  uterine, 
though  by  their  fathers  of  different  families.  Eli  married  and  died 
childless,  and  Jacob  according  to  the  Jewish  law  married  his  widow, 
and  had  by  her  a  son  Joseph,  who  was  in  the  eye  of  the  law  the  son 
of  the  deceased  Eli.  According  to  Jewish  custom  the  pedigree  is  re- 
corded following  both  descents,  the  legal  and  the  natural,  that  of  Eli 
given  by  Luke  in  the  line  of  Nathan,  and  that  of  Jacob  given  by 
Matthew  in  the  line  of  Solomon.' 


1  Mill,  196,  says:  "  We  find  no  tradition  more  clear,  more  perpetual  and  universal." 

2  So  Hervey  in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  666.    McClellan,  417,   reverses  this  order; 
Matthew  gives  the  natural  lineaf^e;  Luke  the  Icsal. 

3  Some,  in  later  times,  reversed  this,  making  Joseph  the  natural  sou  of  Eli  and  legal 
eon  oi'  .Jacob. 


Part  1.]  THE   TWO  GENEALOGIES.  63 

It  deserves  to  be  noticed  that  Africanus  affirms  that  his  account  is 
not  an  idle  conjecture,  nor  incapable  of  proof,  but  came  from  the 
relatives  of  the  Lord,  who  "gloried  in  the  idea  of  preserving  the 
memory  of  their  noble  extraction."  Whether  his  statement  respect- 
ing the  destruction  of  the  Jew^ish  family  registers  by  Herod  is  histor- 
ically true  has  been  often  doubted. '  Of  this  mode  of  solution  hy 
reference  to  the  ancient  law  of  Levirate  marriages,  Lightfoot  says  (on 
Luke  iii.  33);  "There  is  neither  word,  nor  reason,  nor  indeed  any 
foundation  at  all."* 

But  while  the  early  Church  generally  ascribed  both  tables  to 
Joseph,  many  since  the  Reformation  have  strenuously  maintained  that 
Luke  gives  the  genealogy  of  Mary.  And  this  view  has  not  a  little  in 
its  favor.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  tables  given  by  Matthew  and 
Luke  are  to  be  regarded  as  copies  of  family  registers  to  which  they 
had  access,  and  which  they  give  as  they  found  them.  It  is  said  that 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  tney  were  guided  by  the  Spirit  to 
make  any  corrections,  for  only  as  exact  copies  would  the  Jews  deem 
them  of  validity.'  This  must  be  taken  with  some  limitations.  It, 
however,  would  not  forbi  .he  insertion  of  an  explanatory  clause  not 
affecting  the  order  of  the  desceii''  ,  Looking  at  the  table  in  Luke  (iii. 
23),  the  first  point  is  ?s  to  the.  aght  reading;  two  things  are  in  dis- 
pute: 1.  The  position  of  "son." — vi6s.  2.  The  presence  or  absence  of 
the  article.  In  the  received  Greek  text  the  reading  is :  wf,  ws  ivoiil^ero,  vibs 
'Iw(n7</),  "being  (as  was  supposed)  the  son  of  Joseph."  The  reading  of 
Tis'ch.  and  W.  and  H.  is:  uv  vl6s,  us  evoiJ.l^€To,'lojcrri(p^  "  being  the  son 
(as  was  supposed)  of  Joseph."  R.  V.  The  article  toO  is  omitted  be- 
fore 'Iwo-T^^,  and  Joseph  is  therefore  not  the  first  name  of  the  series, 
but  Heli.  It  is  said  by  Godet,  ' '  The  absence  of  the  article  puts  the 
name  outside  the  genealogical  series  properly  so  called."  On  what 
antecedent  does  Heli  depend,  upon  "  son  "  or  "  Joseph? "  "  Being  son, 
as  was  supposed,  of  Joseph  who  was  the  son  of  Heli,"  or,  "Being 
son,  as  was  supposed,  but  falsely,  of  Joseph,  and  in  fact  of  Heli."  As 
Luke  had  stated  in  full  the  manner  of  the  Lord?s  birth,  no  reader 
could  fail  to  understand  him  that  Jesus  was  not  the  son  of  Joseph,  as 
was  supposed,  but  of  Heli. 

To  determine  the  construction  of  this  clause,  let  us  consider  the 
general  scope  of  Luke's  Gospel.  If,  like  Matthew,  it  was  his  purpose 
to  found  Christ's  Messianic  claims  upon  His  legal  relationship  to 
Joseph,  he  would,  like  him,  give  Joseph's  genealogical  table.  But 
such  does  not  seem  to  have  been  his  purpose.     Had  he  designed  to 


1  So  Hervey  in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  663;  contra,  Sepp,  li.  106.    See  Hamburger, 
.  393.  2  See,  however,  Mill,  201.  3  go  Morrison. 


64  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  L 

set  forth  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  he  would  in  some  way  have  designated 
the  covenants  with  Abraham  and  David,  which  were  the  basis  of  all 
Messianic  hopes.  But  no  allusion  is  made  to  these  covenants,  nor 
any  prominence  given  to  Abraham,  or  David,  and  tlie  genealogy  is 
continued  upward  to  Adam.  We  do  not  therefore  find  grounds  for 
believing  that  Luke  had  in  view,  like  Matthew,  the  jjroof  that  Jesus 
as  the  legal  son  of  Joseph  was  the  promised  Messiah.  "What  then  is 
his  purpose?  It  is  one  in  conformity  with  the  general  scope  of  his 
Gospel,  which  was  designed  for  Gentiles,  and  takes  little  note  of  the 
special  relations  of  the  Jews  to  God.  After  giving  a  full  narrative  of 
the  Lord's  miraculous  conception  and  birth,  and  a  brief  mention  of 
His  baptism,  as  preparatory  to  His  jiublic  ministry,  he  proceeds  to 
give  His  genealogy  on  that  side  only  on  which  it  could  be  really 
given,  that  of  His  mother.  Through  her  He  was  made  man,  and 
through  her  should  His  descent  from  Adam  be  traced. 

If  upon  these  grounds  we  assume  that  Luke  gives  the  genealogy  of 
Mary,  let  us  note  the  force  of  his  explanatory  statement.  Why  does 
he  insert  the  clause,  "being  the  son  (as  was  supposed)  of  Joseph"? 
Is  it  that,  being  about  to  give  Joseph's  genealogy  as  the  legal  father 
of  Jesus,  he  thinks  it  necessary  to  insert  a  declaration  that  he  was  not 
His  true  father?  This  in  view  of  the  previous  narrative  seems  super- 
fluous, for  he  had  already  shown  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  And  it 
is  plainly  incongruous  to  assert  that  He  was  not  the  son  of  Jose23h, 
and  then  proceed  to  give  Joseph's  genealogy,  unless  he  would  make 
prominent  His  legal  sonship,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  he  has  not  done. 
If,  however,  we  suppose  that  he  designs  to  give  the  Lord's  descent 
through  His  mother,  the  bearing  of  the  parenthetical  clause  is 
obvious.  By  the  Jews  at  large  he  was  regarded  as  the  son  of  Joseph, 
and  some  explanation  therefore  was  necessary  why,  contrary  to  all 
usage,  the  mother's,  not  the  father's,  genealogy  should  be  given. 
This  explanation  is  made  in  the  statement  that  He  was  supposed  to  be 
son  of  Joseph.  "Jesus,  generally  but  erroneously  supposed  to  be  son 
of  Joseph,  was  the  son  of  Eli,  of  Matthan,  of  Levi,"  etc.  That  Mary's 
own  name  is  not  mentioned  makes  no  dithculty,  since  the  mention  of 
female  names  was  contrary  to  usage  in  such  tables,  and  as  she  had 
already  been  distinctly  mentioned  as  His  mother,  there  was  no  danger 
of  misapprehension.  Her  name  being  omitted,  Jesus  must  be  brought 
into  immediate  connection  with  her  father,  His  grandfather.  That 
He  is  called  son.  not  grandson,  is  unimportant,  the  former  term  being 
often  used  to  express  the  more  distant  relationship.  That  it  is  not 
strictly  used  throughout  the  table  is  apparent  from  verse  38,  where 
Adam  is  called  the  son  of  God.     That  Eli  is  not  expresdy  said  to  be 


Part  I.]  THE   TWO   GENEALOGIES.  65 

Mary's  father  is  not  essential,  since  the  form  of  the  table  imiilies  tlie 
degree  of  relationship.' 

Some,  who  regard  the  table  in  Luke  as  that  of  Mary,  and  Eli  as 
ner  father,  suppose  that  Joseph  is  brought  into  it  as  his  son-in-law  or 
adopted  son.'^  If  it  be  admitted  that  this  degree  of  relationship  may 
be  thus  expressed,  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  would,  without  express 
mention,  find  place  in  a  table  in  which  only  the  direct  line  of  descent 
is  given.  Jesus,  having  no  earthly  father,  may  well  be  called  the  son 
of  Eli,  although  strictly  grandson,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  but 
the  same  reason  does  not  hold  in  the  case  of  Josejih.' 

We  conclude  that  the  two  tables  given  by  Matthew  and 
Luke  are  to  be  regarded  as  those  of  Joseph  and  of  Mary,  and 
are  in  beautiful  harmony  with  the  scope  of  their  respective 
Gospels.  Through  that  of  Matthew,  Jesus  is  shown  to  be  the 
heir  of  David  as  the  legal  son  of  Joseph;  through  that  of  Luke, 
to  be  of  David's  seed  according  to  the  flesh  by  His  birth  of 
Mary.  The  former,  beginning  with  Abraham,  the  father  of  the 
chosen  people,  descends  through  David  the  king,  to  Christ  the 
royal  heir,  in  whom  all  the  national  covenants  should  be  ful 
filled  ;  the  latter,  beginning  with  the  second  Adam,  the  eternally 
begotten  Son  of  God,  ascends  to  the  first  Adam,  the  son  of  God 
by  creation.  Each  Evangelist  gives  His  genealogy  in  that 
aspect  which  best  suits  his  special  purpose;  to  the  one  He  is  the 
Messiah  of  the  Jews,  to  the  other  the  Saviour  of  the  woi'ld/ 

Our  purpose  does  not  lead  us  to  consider  further  the  special 
features  of  these  genealogies.  Regarding  them  as  copies  of 
family  registers,  documents  for  whose  accuracy  in  every  point 
the  Evangelists  are  not  responsible,  any  real  or  seeming  dis- 
crepancies do  not  affect  their  credibility,  unless  disproving  the 
fundamental  fact  of  Christ's  descent  from  Abraham  and  David. 


1  That  the  Jews  eo  regarded  him  is?  shown  by  Lightfoot  on  Luke  iii.  23;  Sepp,  ii.  8. 

2  Robinson's  Harmony,  185  ;  Alexander. 

3  As  to  the  use  of  "  son  "  to  express  the  relation  of  "  grandson,"  see  Keil,  in  loco. 
<The  opinions  of  modern  scholars  upon  this  point  are  about  equally  divided.    Among 

those  who  regard  Luke's  table  as  that  of  Mary,  not  of  Joseph,  are;  Newcome,  Robinson, 
Greswell,  Lange,  Wieseler,  Riggenbach,  Auberlen,  Ebrard,  Krafft,  Bloomfield,  Alexander, 
Oosterzee,  Godet,  Keil,  Riddle,  Weiss,  who  says  that  to  refer  Luke's  table  to  Joseph 
"  is  exegetically  impossible  "  ;  contra.  Alford,  Meyer,  Winer,  Bleek,  Fairbairn,  Da  Costa, 
Friedlieb,  Patritius,  Mill,  EUicott,  Westcott,  McClellan,  Farrar,  Sabbatier,  Edersheim, 
"  more  likely."    Pressense  thinks  there  are  "  contradictions  now  insoluble." 


Q6  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  I 

But  in  this  fact  both  tables  agree,  and  any  minor  inaccuracies, 
if  there  be  such,  are  unimportant.' 

That  Joseph  was  the  legal  heir  to  the  throne  of  David,  his 
relation  to  Jesus,  the  promised  Messiah,  sufficiently  shows. 
Whether  he  and  Mary  were  the  only  surviving  descendants  of 
David  we  have  no  positive  data  to  decide,  but  it  is  not  prob- 
able ;  for,  if  they  had  been  the  sole  survivors,  this  very  fact,  which 
could  not  have  been  unknown,  must  have  made  them  con- 
spicuous. Hegesippus  *  makes  mention  of  the  grandchildren  of 
Judas,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  who  were  brought  before 
Domitian,  as  being  of  David's  race.  Not  improbably  there 
were  many  in  more  or  less  distant  affinity  to  this  royal  family. 
It  has  been  supposed  by  some  that  the  residence  of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  so  far  from  their  ancestral  seat,  in  despised  Galilee,  and 
in  one  of  its  most  obscure  villag^ "?,  is  to  be  explained  by  the 
fact  that  they  were  generally  known  to  be  of  David's  line,  and 
so  exposed  to  the  jealousy  of  Herod.^  But  of  this  there  is  no 
proof.  It  is  rather  to  be  explained  as  a  sign  of  the  fallen  state 
of  that  once  royal  house.  Its  members  were  now  amongst  the 
humblest  of  the  people,  too  humble  to  arouse  the  jealousy  of  the 
Idumaean  usurper.  We  do  not  learn  that  in  the  course  of  his 
reign  he  took  any  precautionary  measures  against  any  of  the 
descendants  of  David,  looking  upon  them  as  claimants  of  the 
throne.  They  seem  to  have  sunk  wholly  out  of  public  sight. 
Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the  expectation  that  the  Messiah  shoiild 
spring  from  the  house  of  David  was  strong  and  general.''  Ho'-v 
can  these  facts  be  reconciled  ?  If  the  people  were  .really  looking 
for  a  Messiah  descended  from  that  family,  miist  not  all  who 
were  known  to  be  members  of  it  have  occupied  a  large  space  in 
public  attention  ? 

Perliaps  the  following  may  be  the  just  solution  of  the  diflB- 
culty.     The  promise  made  to  David  and  his  house  respecting 


'Those  who  wish  to  see  the  questions  respecting  the  divisions  in  Matthew's  tables,  his 
abridgments  ana  omissions,  and  the  relations  of  his  table  to  that  of  Luke,  will  find  all 
points  fully  treated  by  Mill,  147.  See  also  Ebrard,  188,  and  the  Dubia  Evangelica  of 
Spanheini,  Pars  Prima. 

2  In  Ensebius,  iii.  20.  3  go  Bucher. 

■•  According  to  Mill  (385),  it  was  with  the  view  to  obviate  this  national  expectation  that 
Ilerod,  two  years  before  his  death,  imposed  an  oath  of  fidelity  to  Caesar  and  himself. 
This  is  hardly  warranted  by  the  language  of  Josephus, 


Part  I.]  THE   TWO   GENEALOGIES.  67 

the  throne  of  Israel  was  not  absohite.  (2  Sam.  vii.  12,  etc.) 
Its  fulfihnent  was  to  depend  upon  the  condition  of  obedience. 
Yet,  if  the  condition  failed,  the  promise  was  not  withdrawn. 
His  descendants  were  not  reduced  to  the  rank  of  private  citizens, 
but  its  fulfilment  was  suspended,  and  their  kingly  claims  were 
in  abeyance.  After  the  return  from  the  captivity  of  Babylon, 
the  house  of  David,  at  first  prominent  in  Zerubbabel,  fell  more 
and  more  into  obscurity.  Other  families  began  to  be  more 
prominent.  At  last  the  Maccabees,  through  their  wisdom  and 
valor,  won  the  highest  place,  and  became  the  acknowledged 
heads  of  the  nation  —  both  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  chiefs. 
After  their  decay  the  family  of  Herod,  through  Roman  favor, 
became  dominant.  During  these  400  years  no  one  of  David's 
lineage  seems  to  have  been  conspicuous,  or  in  any  way  to  have 
drawn  to  himself  public  att-  tion;  and  probably  little  faith 
existed  among  the  people  at  large  that  the  divine  promise  would 
have  any  fulfilment  in  that  house.  But  the  Messianic  hopes  of 
the  Jews  had,  during  the  wars  of  the  Maccabees  and  under  the 
usurpation  of  Herod,  been  constantly  gaining  in  depth  and 
strength.  (Edersheim,  i.  62.)  Everywhere  they  began  to  turn 
to  their  Scriptures,  and  to  read  them  with  new  earnestness  and 
faith.  And  as  the  expectation  of  the  Messiah  became  and  more 
prevalent,  it  was  naturally  connected  with  the  promise  to  David, 
and  we  know  that  the  Lord  was  addressed  often  as  "  Son  of 
Diavid."  (See  John  vii.  42.)  Yet  among  his  descendants  there 
ws  no  one  to  whom  public  attention  was  turned  as  in  any  way 
likely  to  fulfil  their  hopes.  Hence,  while  a  general  belief 
existed  that  the  Messiah  should  be  of  that  family,  its  individual 
members  continued  to  live  in  obscurity.  And,  as  it  was  also 
firmly  believed  that  Elijah  the  prophet  must  personally  come 
as  the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah,  this  belief  would  naturally 
prevent  any  special  attention  being  turned  to  them  till  the 
prophet  actually  appeared.  Thus  Joseph,  the  carpenter  of 
Nazareth,  might  have  been  known  by  some  to  be  of  David's 
line,  and  even  the  legal  claimant  of  the  thi-one,  and  yet  live  un 
honored  and  unnoticed. 

Nazareth   and  its   geographical    position    will   hereafter   be 
more  particularly  spoken  of.     It  is  disputed  where  Mary  was 


68  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  I. 

when  the  angel  visited  lier  to  announce  the  Lord's  birth.'  The 
Greek  Church  affirms  that  she  was  not  at  her  own  house  when 
he  came,  but  had  gone  to  the  fountain  of  the  village,  and  that  he 
found  her  there. ^  Over  this  fountain,  the  source  of  the  present 
one,  to  which  its  waters  are  conducted  by  a  stone  aqueduct,  the 
Greeks  have  built  a  church  which  is  called  the  Church  of  the 
Annunciation.  The  Latins  affirm  that  the  angel  found  her  in  a 
grotto,  over  which  stood  the  house  that  was  carried  in  the  thir- 
teenth century  by  angels,  first  to  Dalmatia,  and  thence  to  Italy, 
where  it  still  remains.^  The  exact  places  in  this  grotto  where 
the  angel  and  the  virgin  stood  during  their  interview  are  marked 
out  by  two  pillars.  Over  this  grotto  now  stands  a  church, 
which  is  said  to  be,  after  that  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  the  most 
beautiful  in  Syria.^  Tradition  also  points  out  the  workshop  of 
Joseph,  now  a  Latin  chapel.  The  time  of  Gabriel's  appearance 
was,  according  to  Bengel  (in  loco),  at  evening,  vesjjeri,  ut  proha 
bile  est.     (See  Dan.  ix.  21.) 

March  —  April,  749.    5  b.  c. 

Immediately  after  the  visit  of  the  angel  Mary  left  Nazareth,  Luke  1.  39-56. 
and  went  to  the  home  of  Zacharias  in  the  hill-country  of  Judah, 
and  remained  there  about  three  months. 

It  has  been  supposed  that  Mary  remained  at  Nazareth  sev- 
eral weeks  before  visiting  Elisabeth,  and  that  during  this  period 
the  events  related  by  Matthew  (i.  18-2.5)  occurred.^  But  with 
this,  Luke's  statement  (i.  39),  that  "she  went  with  haste  into  the 
hill-country,"  is  inconsistent  ;  for  going  with  haste  cannot  refer 
merely  to  the  rapidity  of  the  journey  after  it  was  begun,  but  to 
the  fact  that  she  made  no  delay  in  commencing  it.  Hug  refers 
to  a  traditionary  law  that  virgins  should  not  travel,  and  that 
therefore  Joseph  must  previously  have  taken  her  home  as  his 
wife.  Alford  says  that  "as  a  betrothed  virgin  she  could  not 
travel,"  but  cites  no  authority.  But  if  any  such  law  were  at  this 
time  in  force,  which  is  very  doubtful,  Mary  may  have  journeyed 


1  See  Hofmann,  74.  *  See  Protevaiigelium  Jacobi,  ch.  ii.;  Baed.,  362. 

3  See  Baronius,  who  affirms  that  no  one  should  doubt  respecting  the  reality  of  this 
miracle.    In  refutation,  Stanley,  439. 

*  Porter,  ii.  361;  Stewart,  445.  ^  gbrard,  Alford. 


Part  1.]  Mary's  visit  to  Elisabeth.  69 

in  company  witli  friends,  or  under  the  special  protection  of  a 
servant,  or  with  a  body  of  neighbors  going  up  to  the  Passover. 
That  no  unmarried  female  could  journey  even  to  visit  her  friends 
is  incredible.  "  The  incidental  mention  of  women  and  children 
in  the  great  assemblies  gathered  around  Jesus  is  true  to  Oriental 
life,  strange  as  it  may  appear  to  those  who  read  so  much  about 
female  seclusion  in  the  East.  In  the  great  gatherings  of  this 
day,  at  funerals,  weddings,  feasts,  and  fairs,  women  and  children 
often  constitute  the  largest  portion  of  the  assemblies."  '  Ebrard's 
supposition  (222)  that  Mary  continued  at  Nazareth  till  certain 
suspicious  women,  the  jjromihce,  informed  Joseph  of  her  condi- 
tion, and  that  then  God  made  known  to  him  what  had  occurred, 
has  nothing  in  its  favor.  As  little  basis  has  the  supposition  that 
she  told  Joseph  of  the  visit  of  the  angel. ^  The  narrative  plainly 
imphes  that  Mary,  without  communicating  to  him,  or  any  one 
else,  what  had  taken  place,  departed  immediately  to  seek  Elisa- 
beth.^ That  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  she  was 
placed  she  should  greatly  desire  to  see  Elisabeth,  was  natural, 
and  it  is  most  improbable  that  she  should  wait  several  weeks. 
The  whole  narrative  shows  that  neither  Elisabeth  nor  Mary 
rashly  forestalled  God's  action  by  premature  revelation.  Both, 
full  of  faith,  waited  in  quietness  and  silence  till  He  should  reveal 
in  His  own  way  what  He  had  done.  Perhaps  the  expression 
(Luke  i.  56),  "she  returned  to  her  own  house,"  elg  tov  ohoy 
avn'ig,  may  imply  that  she  had  not  yet  been  taken  to  the  house 
of  Joseph. 

The  distance  from  Nazareth  to  Jerusalem  is  about  eighty 
miles,*  and  if  Zacharias  lived  at  Hebron,  seventeen  miles  south  of 
Jerusalem,  the  whole  journey  would  occupy  four  or  five  days 
Several  routes  were  open  to  Mary.  The  most  direct  was  by 
Nain  and  Endor,  and  through  Samaria  and  southward  by 
Bethel.  If  for  any  cause  Samaria  was  to  be  avoided,  the  J  ordan 
could  be  crossed  near  Scythopolis,  and  the  way  followed  through 
Peraea  along  its  eastern  bank.  This  was  the  common  route  with 
the  Jews  in  their  journeyings  to  the  feast,  if  they  wished  spe- 


1  Thomson,  ii.  84.  -  So  Lange. 

s  So  Tischendorf,  Robinson,  Lichtonstoin,  P>lersheini. 
*  Kitto,  Sepp,  80-90  Roman  milos  ;   othurs,  more. 


70  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORB.  [Part  I 

cially  to  avoid  Samaria.  Still  a  third  way  was  by  Dor  on  the 
sea-coast,  passing  through  Lydda,  and  thence  over  the  mountains 
of  Ephraim. 

June,  749.    5  b.  c. 

A  little  before  the  birth  of  John,  Mary  returns  to  Nazareth  ; 
Joseph,  seeing  her  condition,  is  minded  to  put  her  away  priv-  Matt.  i.  18-25. 
ily,  but  is  commanded  by  God,  through  an  angel,  to  tal^e  her 
home  as  his  wife,  for  that  which  is  conceived  in  her  is  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  He  obeys  the  word,  and  takes  Mary  as  his  wife. 
Elisabeth  gives  birth  to  a  son,  who  is  circumcised  on  the  eighth  Luke  1.  57-80. 
day,  and  named  John  in  obedience  to  angelic  direction. 

Whether  Mary  left  Elisabeth  before  or  after  John's  birth,  is 
not  expressly  stated,  but  the  most  natural  construction  of  the 
narrative  is  that  it  was  before.' 

The  interval  that  had  elapsed  between  the  Annunciation  and 
Mary's  return  from  Judaea,  was  sufficient  to  make  manifest  to 
Joseph  her  condition.  That  she  at  this  time  informed  him  of 
the  visit  of  the  angel,  and  of  the  divine  promise,  is  not  said  in 
so  many  words,  but  is  plainly  implied.  The  position  in  which 
Joseph  was  now  placed  was  one  of  great  perplexity  ;  and  as  a 
just  man  who  desired  to  mete  out  to  every  one  that  which  was 
his  due,  he  was,  on  the  one  hand,  unwilling  to  take  her  under 
such  imputation  of  immorality,  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  unwilling 
to  condemn  her  where  there  was  a  possibility  of  innocence.  He 
therefore  determined  to  put  her  away  privately,  which  he  could 
lawfully  do,  and  so  avoid  the  necessity  of  exposing  her  to  pub- ' 
Uc  disgrace,  or  of  inflicting  upon  her  severe  punishment. 
While  yet  in  doubt  as  to  his  proper  course,  the  angel  of  the 
Lord,  in  a  dream,  confirmed  the  statement  of  Mary,  and  directed 
him  to  call  her  son  by  the  name  of  Jesus,  as  the  future  Saviour 
of  His  people.  Agreeably  to  the  divine  commandment,  Joseph 
took  Mary  at  once  to  his  own  house  as  his  wife. 

While  these  things  were  taking  place  in  Galilee,  John  was 
born  in  Judsea,  and  was  circumcised  at  the  legal  time.  It  was 
customary  to  join  tlie  giving  of  the  name  with  the  performance 
of  this  rite.  This  custom  seems  to  have  originated  in  the  fact 
that  Abraham's  name  was  changed  at  the  time  he  was  circum^ 


'So  Keil,  McClellau,  Pressense;  contra,  Godet. 


Part  r.]  JOSEPH  TAKES  MARY  HOME.  71 

cised  (Gen.  xvii.  23).  The  name  John,  given  the  Baptist  by 
the  angel,  is  of  importance,  as  showing  the  purpose  of  God  in 
his  ministry.  It  means  "  the  Grace  of  Jehovah,"  or,  "one  whom 
Jehovah  bestows,"  and  indicated  that  God  was  about  to  begin 
an  economy  of  grace,  in  distinction  from  the  economy  of  the 
law.  His  ministry,  like  that  of  Jesus,  was  for  mercy,  not  for 
judgment. 

December,  749.     5  b.  c. 

In  consequence  of  an  edict  that  all  the  world  should  be 
taxed,  Joseph  and  Mary  leave  Nazareth  to  go  to  Bethlehem,    Lxjke  ii.  1-5. 
the  city  of  David,  to  be  taxed  there. 

The  chronological  and  other  questions  connected  with  this 
taxing  are  undoubtedly  among  the  most  perplexing  which  meet 
us  in  the  whole  Gospel  narrative.  The  former  have  been 
already  considered,  but  the  latter  demand  a  careful  examination. 
Before  we  proceed  to  consider  them,  let  us  note  the  character  of 
the  Evangelist's  statements,  and  his  general  purpose. 

Turning  to  Luke's  words  (ii.  1-3),  we  find  that  he  speaks  in 
very  brief  and  comprehensive  terms.  An  edict  had  been  issued 
by  the  Emperor  Caesar  Augustus,  "that  all  the  world  should  be 
taxed  ;  and  this  taxing  was  first  made  when  Cyrenius  was  gov- 
ernor of  Syria."  In  obedience  to  this  edict,  all  went  to  be 
taxed,  each  into  his  own  city.  This  is  all  the  information  the 
Evangelist  gives.  He  does  not  say  when  this  edict  was  issued, 
nor  what  were  its  peculiar  features,  nor  give  any  account  of  its 
execution,  except  in  Judaea.  Its  only  apparent  value  to  him,  and 
the  only  cause  that  leads  him  to  mention  it,  is  that  it  was  the 
occasion  that  brought  Joseph  and  Mary  to  Bethlehem.  He 
therefore  speaks  of  it  only  in  the  most  general  way,  and  we  can- 
not learn  from  him  whether  it  was  a  mere  enrollment  of  persons, 
or  also  a  census  of  property;  whether  it  was  carried  on  by  gov- 
ernors of  provinces,  or  by  special  commissions;  whether  it  was 
executed  at  once,  or  after  a  lapse  of  time,  or  in  various  provinces 
at  various  times.  He  is  concerned  only  with  its  immediate  rela- 
tions to  the  birth  of  Jesus  at  Bethlehem,  and  does  not  mention 
even  the  manner  of  its  execution  in  Judaea,  whether  by  Herod 
and  his  officers,  in  obedience  to  imperial  direction,  or  by  a  special 
commissioner  from  Rome,  or  by  the  governor  of  some  adjoining 


72  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  -  [Part  I. 

province.  The  manner  of  its  execution  had  no  interest  for  him. 
Its  more  important  and  long  disputed  historical  points  we  now 
proceed  to  examine. 

In  our  examination  of  this  subject  we  shall  consider:  1st.  The 
nature  and  extent  of  this  taxing;  2d.  The  proof  that  it  actually 
took  place ;  3d.  Its  connection  with  Cyrenius. 

I.     Nature  and  extent  of  this  taxing. 

The  word  (awoypacpri),  rendered  "taxing"  A.  V.,  "enrollment" 
R.  v.,  is  defined  as  "an  enrollment  on  the  public  record  of  persous 
together  with  their  property  and  income,  as  the  basis  of  a  valuation 
dworlfiria-Ls,  i.  e.,  how  much  tax  should  be  levied  upon  each  one"  (T. 
G.  Lex.).  This  would  seem  to  distinguish  the  enrollment  or  registra- 
tion of  persons  from  the  subsequent  valuation  of  property ;  a  distinc- 
tion, indeed,  which  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case.  It  may,  however, 
be  questioned  whether  this  definition  is  not  too  narrow.  The  term 
seems  often  to  have  been  applied  to  registrations  of  persons  for  other 
purposes  than  taxation,  as  to  ascertain  the  nimiber  of  inhabitants  in  a 
given  province,  how  many  men  were  fit  to  be  soldiers,  and  for  other 
statistical  ends  (Zumpt,  95).  But  that  Luke  uses  it  here  with  refer- 
ence to  taxation,  we  may  believe,  since  the  Jews  were  free  from  mili- 
tary service ;  and  we  see  no  good  reason  why  Joseph  and  Mary  should 
go  to  Bethlehem  simply  to  be  numbered  as  citizens.  The  opposite  view 
is  taken  by  Greswell  (i.  541):  "The  census  at  the  nativity  paid  no 
regard  to  the  value  of  property.  .  .  Joseph  and  Mary  went  to 
Bethlehem,  not  because  they  possessed  any  property  there,  but  because 
they  belonged  to  the  house  and  family  of  David."  It  was  an  enroll- 
ment ^;'er  ca/>)jto.  So  Weiss  {Lehen  Jesu,  i.  250),  holds  that  the  edict 
does  not  refer  to  a  valuation  for  the  purpose  of  taxation,  but  was  an 
administrative  measure  commanding  a  general  enumeration  of  the 
people.  It  is  said  by  Zumpt,  96,  "the  word  'taxing' has  no  exact 
meaning;  it  sometimes  includes  an  estimate  of  property  and  some- 
times not."  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  lield  by  Meyer  that  the  words 
"  should  be  taxed  "  or  "enrolled "  must  be  regarded  as  a  direct  regis- 
tration into  the  tax  list. 

In  looking  at  the  taxing  as  a  whole,  there  seem  to  be  three  suc- 
cessive acts  clearly  distinguishable :  1 .  That  of  registration  or  enroll- 
ment, an  act  done  by  an  official,  but  demanding  the  personal  pres- 
ence of  those  whom  he  registered,  or  of  their  legal  representatives. 
(d.iroypd(pea6ai,  "to  get  onesself  registered").  2.  Preparixtion  by  an 
official  of  the  tax  lists,  based  upon  the  registration,  and  called 
dnoypacpal,  trthnlcB  censorince  ;  these  were  preserved  till  the  next  census. 
3.  The  collection  of  the  taxes  as  assessed  upon  the  lists.     Some  inter- 


Part  1.]  THE   TAXING   OF  AUGUSTUS.  73 

val  of  time  must  have  elapsed  between  each  of  these  several  acts,  and 
it  may  have  been  a  considerable  one.  It  is  probable  that,  as  their 
names  were  enrolled,  the  amount  of  their  property  and  income  was 
stated  by  them  as  the  basis  of  the  subsequent  assessment. 

That  Luke  elsewhere  uses  the  word  airoypaipy)^  ' '  in  the  days  of  the 
taxing  "  (Acts  v.  37),  as  embracing  all  these  several  steps,  is  proba- 
ble, for  it  was  apparently  the  collection  of  the  tax  that  incited  the 
rebellion.  (Jos.  Antiq.,  xviii.  1.  1.)  But  it  does  not  follow  that  he  so 
uses  it  here.  Joseph  and  Mary  were  registered  at  Bethlehem,  but 
does  this  imply  that  all  the  successive  steps  were  taken  while  they 
were  there  —  the  tax  list  completed,  and  the  taxes  paid?  It  is  greatly 
improbable  that  anything  more  than  the  registration  of  the  name 
and  the  amount  of  taxal:)le  property  then  took  place. 

To  whom  did  this  enrollment  apply?  Luke  says  that  "all  the 
world  should  be  taxed" — Traa-av  ttjv  olKov/j.4vyjv.  This  is  the  phrase 
generally  applied  to  the  Roman  empire  —  arbis  terrarum  —  and  must 
be  so  understood  here,  and  not  limited,  as  some  have  said,  to  the 
province  of  Judaea.  (Lardner,  i.  267;  Lewin,  109.  But  Wieseler 
confines  it  to  the  provinces,  since  Italy  was  not  subject  to  taxation.) 

We  conclude,  then,  that  this  edict  ordering  an  enrollment  had  as 
its  ultimate  end  taxation,  and  that  its  operation  was  to  extend 
through  the  whole  Roman  empire. 

II.  The  proof  as  to  its  execution,  the  manner  and  time.  It  is  not 
necessary  here  to  discuss  the  manner  of  the  Roman  census.  It  is  ad- 
mitted that  Roman  citizens  distinctively  so  called,  whether  in  Italy 
or  elsewhere,  were  not  subject  to  direct  taxation.  We  are  concerned 
only  with  the  provinces.' 

Let  us  note,  first,  the  antecedent  probability  of  such  an  edict. 
That  Augustus,  now  become  absolute  master  of  a  kingdom  comjoosed 
of  many  heterogeneous  and  discordant  provinces,  should  attempt  to 
bring  them  all  under  some  equable  and  uniform  system  of  government, 
is  only  what  we  should  expect  of  one  who  had  in  an  eminent  degree 
the  large  and  comprehensive  mind  of  a  statesman,  and  in  this  he  only 
carried  out  the  measures  begun  by  Julius  Caesar,  whose  general 
policy  he  adopted.  The  intrinsic  difficulties  were  very  great,  and  he 
must  proceed  cautiously  and  slowly.  It  is  very  unlikely  that  he 
would  disregard  tWe  peculiarities  of  the  several  provinces,  and  carry 
out  everywhere  at  the  same  time  and  under  all  circumstances  the 
same  modes  of  taxation.  The  end  to  be  reached  was  a  general 
and  uniform  system,  but  he  was  far  too  wise  a  man  to  hasten  matters 


1  The  more  recent  discussions  of  this  question  are  by  Zumpt,  Geburtsjahr,  90,  ff.; 
Wieseler,  Beitrage,  16;  Woolsey,  Bib.  Sacra,  1870,  204. 

4 


^4  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  1 

prematurely,  or  to  force  disagreeable  measures  upon  liis  disaffected 
provinces.  (It  is  said  by  "Woolsey,  New  Englander,  706,  1869.  "a 
settled  plan  was  pursued,  which  looked  toward  a  complete  estimate 
of  property  and  population  for  the  Roman  world.") 

If,  then,  the  statement  of  Luke  that  Augustus  made  a  decree  that 
all  the  world  should  be  taxed,  be  taken  in  its  larger  sense  as  a 
declaration  of  his  fixed  policy  to  establish  a  uniform  system  of  taxa- 
tion throughout  the  empire,  probably  including  Italy,  it  has  abundant 
confirmation.  But  if  Luke's  language  be  taken  literally,  and  the 
note  of  time  "in  these  days"  (ii.  1)  be  limited  to  the  events  spoken 
of  in  chapter  I,  — i^erhajis  a  period  of  one  or  two  years,  — we  must 
confess  that  we  have  no  other  proof  of  it  than  his  statement.  But 
there  is  nothing  intrinsically  improbable  in  it,  if  we  do  not  press  his 
words  so  far  as  to  make  him  assert  that  this  enrollment  was  carried 
out  everywhere  in  the  same  manner  and  at  the  same  time.  He  is  in- 
terested only  in  showing  the  application  of  this  edict  to  Judaea  as 
determining  the  place  of  the  Lord's  birth.  (But  see  Steinmeyer, 
40.) 

/  That  Augustus  three  times  held  a  census  has  been  already  men- 
tioned in  the  discussion  respecting  the  time  of  the  Lord's  birth,  but 
that  any  of  them  embraced  the  provinces  is  in  dispute ;  the  weight  of 
authority  seems  to  be  against  it.  It  is  also  in  dispute  whether  in  all 
these  there  was  both  an  enumeration  of  Roman  citizens  and  a  census 
of  property. 

It  is  objected  to  the  statement  of  Luke  that  no  mention  is  made 
of  an  edict  by  the  Roman  historians.  (Lardner,  i.  267.  See  Wieseler, 
Beitrage,  5L)  Bui  in  the  history  of  Dio  Cassius  there  is  a  great  gap 
from  747-757,  — the  very  ])eriod  in  which  Luke  states  this  taxing  to 
have  been  held.  Suetonius  is  very  brief,  as  also  Tacitus.  The 
argument,  therefore,  from  the  silence  of  contemporary  writers,  is  of 
little  force,  and,  if  pushed  to  its  extreme,  would  compel  us  to  believe 
that  no  important  event  took  place  in  the  long  reign  of  Augustus,  of 
which  the  few  historians,  whose  works  remain  to  us  in  whole  or  in 
part,  have  not  made  specific  mention.  It  has  often  l)een  remarked 
how  little  attention  historians  of  that  time  gave  to  the  most  important 
measures  of  civil  administration  in  comparison  with  military  affairs, 
and  even  in  comparison  with  things  of  a  momentary  popular  interest, 
as  games,  public  buildings,  and  the  like.  Zumpt  (148)  gives  an 
illustration  in  Dio  Cassius,  who  mentions  some  of  the  edifices  built 
by  Agrippa,  but  does  not  mention  his  map  of  the  world,  of  incom- 
parably greater  importance. 

But,  if  there  is  no  direct  historical  mention  of  the  edict,  there  is 
much  strong  incidental  evidence  of  it. 


Part  1.]  THE   TAXING  OF  AUGUSTUS.  "^5 

1.  That  there  was  a  geometrical  survey  of  the  empire,  which,  if 
aot  commenced  by  Augustus  but  by  Julius  Coesar  just  before  his 
ieath,  was  continued  by  him.  (Wies.,  Syn.,  81,  Beitrage,  55; 
3epp,  i.  135;  Zumpt,  130;  Woolsey,  N.  Eng.,  704.)  Of  the  Roman 
chorographic  maps,  Merivale  (iv.  426)  says:  "  The  labors  of  a  quarter 
of  a  century  produced,  no  doubt,  a  complete  registration  of  the  size, 
the  figure,  and  other  natural  features  of  every  province,  district,  and 
estate  throughout  the  empire."  But  this  survey,  if  carried  out  in  the 
provinces  under  Augustus,  which  is  denied  by  some,  was  not  accom- 
panied by  a  census ;  it  can  be  regarded  only  as  prejjaratory  to  one, 
and  in  the  interest  of  a  better  taxation. 

2.  The  Bremarium  imijerii.  We  know  from  Tacitus  (Annal,  i. 
xi.)  that  Augustus  had  a  little  book,  which  he  had  w^ritten  out  with 
his  own  hand,  and  which  contained  accounts  of  the  numbers  of 
soldiers,  of  the  taxes,  imposts,  and  the  like :  Oi^es  publicae  contineban- 
tur.  Quantum  civium,  sociorumque,  in  armis;  quas  classes,  regna,  pro- 
vincae  tributa,  aut  vectigalia  et  necessitates  et  lai^gitones,  quae  cuyicta  sua 
manu  j^crscrijjserat  Augustus.  This  Bremarium  imiyerii  is  mentioned 
also  by  Suetonius  and  Dio  Cassius,  and  must  have  been  based  upon 
government  examinations  of  all  parts  of  the  empire.  According  to 
Prideaux,  it  was  probably  something  of  the  same  kind  as  the  Dooms- 
day Book  of  William  the  Conqueror.  This  much,  at  least,  is  fairly  to 
be  inferred  from  these  labors  of  Augustus,  that  he  had  made  an  ex- 
amination of  the  provinces  of  the  empire  as  to  their  resources  and 
capacities,  and  with,  reference  to  their  respective  contributions  in 
men  and  money  for  the  support  of  the  government.  Weiss  remarks 
that  if  Aiigustus  procured  memoranda  estimating  the  population,  the 
number  capable  of  bearing  arms,  the  extent  to  which  the  whole 
country,  including  allies,  was  available  for  revenue,  this  involved 
throughout  the  empire  just  such  estimates  of  the  people  as  this  in 
Luke.     But  that  he  then  ordered  a  general  census  is  not  shown. 

3.  Into  the  statements  of  individuals  of  later  time  whicli  affirm  or 
imply  a  general  census,  we  cannot  here  enter.  One  of  the  most  im- 
portant of  these  is  Cassiodorus  (6th  century.)  It  is  said  by  him  that 
in  the  days  of  Augustus  there  was  a  census  of  the  Roman  world  — 
orhis  Romnnus;  that  there  were  measiirements  of  the  lands  for  taxable 
purposes;  and  tliat  the  records  of  these  measurements  had  been  pre- 
served, and  were  still  to  be  seen.  To  tliis  statement  many  give 
credit.'  But  others  think  that  Cassiodorus  only  repeats  in  part  the 
account  of  Luke,  and  cannot  be  considered  as  an  independent  witness. 
(So  Mommsen  quoted  by  Zumpt.  Woolsey  says,  Bib.  Sacra,  300:  "We 
cannot  receive  it  with  full  confidence.") 

1  Zumpt,  140,  Wies.  Beitia.t;o,  M. 


76  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  t 

A  statement  made  hy  some  unknown  writer  is  found  in  Suidas 
(Lex.  s.  V.  dTToypacpri)  to  the  effect  that  Augustus  sent  forth  throughout 
the  empire  twenty  men  of  distinction,  who  made  censuses  of  both 
persons  and  property,  and  apparently  established  some  rules  of  taxa- 
tion. This  statement  is  received  as  substantially  true  by  many 
(Zumpt,  155;  Wies.,  Beitrage,  153;  Woolsey,  McClellan;  contra, 
Scliiirer,  Sevin). 

4.  Historical  evidence  of  several  provincial  censuses.  As  Rome 
extended  its  conquests,  each  new  province  was  made  to  jiay  tribute, 
but  usually  it  was  collected  after  the  old  local  manner.  Thus  there 
was  great  diversity  of  usage,  and  necessarily  much  inequality  and 
complaint.  Augustus,  whose  aim  was  to  consolidate  the  empire  and 
centralize  his  authority,  seems  early  to  have  determined  to  equalize 
the  pecuniary  burdens,  and  establish  some  general  fiscal  system, 
perhaps  with  the  intent  ultimately  to  establish  in  Italy,  also,  direct 
taxation;  but  if  so,  it  was  not  carried  out.  (Zumpt  (159)  dates  this 
determination  as  early  as  27  B.  C.)  It  was  at  this  time  that  a  division 
of  the  provinces  into  imperial  and  senatorial  took  place,  and  that 
Augustus  began  to  carry  out  his  purpose  to  introduce  into  his  prov- 
inces some  uniformity  of  taxation ;  whether  it  then  embraced  any  of 
the  senatorial  provinces,  we  do  not  know.  But  the  condition  of  a 
l^rovince,  whether  long  conquered,  well  settled,  and  peaceful,  or  a  new 
conquest,  and  so  disaffected  and  restless,  would  affect  both  the  time 
and  manner  of  his  action.  Hence  we  are  not  to  look  for  the  same 
measures  in  all  the  provinces,  and,  in  point  of  fact,  we  find  them  very 
unequal. 

Into  details  respecting  these  provincial  censuses  it  is  impossible 
here  to  enter.  Scliiirer  (270)  admits  that  in  Augustus'  time  mosi 
of  the  provinces  were  taxed.  We  can  only  refer  to  some  of  the  re- 
cent writers  who  have  fully  discussed  them.  (See  Wies.,  Beitrage, 
60  ff. ;  Zumpt,  164  ff. ;  Woolsey,  briefly  in  New  Englander,  1869,  710; 
Schiirer. ) 

To  the  objection  that  an  enrollment  under  Herod  would  then 
have  caused  an  insurrection,  it  may  be  said  that  there  was  a  very 
serious  insurrection  just  after  his  death,  and  before  his  will  was  con- 
firmed by  Augustus.  Josephus  (Antiq.,  xvii.  10)  says:  "The  whole 
nation  was  in  tumult,"  and  plainly  tliinks  the  rebellion  at  this 
time  of  much  more  consequence  than  that  which  followed  the  taxing 
in  760.  He,  however,  does  not  mention  this  enrollment,  and  leaves 
his  readers  at  some  loss  to  know  why  such  an  insurrection  should 
then  have  broken  out. 


Part  I.]  TAXING  OF  AUGUSTUS.  77 

III.     The  connection  of  this  enrollment  with  Quirinius.' 

But  before  this  point  is  examined,  we  must  ask,  what  is  the  right 
rendering  of  Luke's  words  (ii.  2)  ?  In  Textus  Becejitus  the  article  is 
inserted :  avry)  i]  dwoypacpri.  In  W.  and  H.  the  text  is  avT-rj  a,7roypa<f>7} 
TrpwTTj  iyivero  iiyefioveiJovTos  rijs 'Zvplas  Kvprjvlov.  In  A.  V.  "  This  taxing 
was  first  made  when  Cyrenius  (Quirinius)  was  governor  of  Syria." 
In  R.  v.,  "This  was  the  first  enrollment  made  when  Quirinius  was 
governor  of  Syria."     Both  translations  are  ambiguous. 

The  point  whether  this  verse  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  parenthesis, 
is  for  us  not  very  important.  It  is  parenthetical  in  the  A.  V.  and  in 
the  translations  of  Norton  and  Noyes,  and  in  the  Greek  of  W.  and 
H.,  but  not  in  the  R.  V.  or  in  most  versions.  The  objection  to  re- 
garding is  as  a  parenthesis  is,  that,  so  taken,  verse  3d  must  be  read: 
"  All  the  citizens  of  the  Roman  empire  went  to  be  taxed,  every  one 
into  his  own  city."  If  the  second  verse  be  wholly  omitted,  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  statement  would  not  be  broken ;  but  with  it,  the  ap- 
plication of  the  decree  may  be  limited  to  a  given  country  and  time. 

The  more  important  renderings  of  this  verse  are  the  following: 

1.  This  first  taxing  was  made  —  carried  into  effect  —  when  Q. 
was  governor  of  Syria. 

2.  This  taxing  was  first  made  —  carried  into  effect  —  when  Q. ,  etc. 

3.  This  taxing  itself,  avr-rj  for  aiV?;,  i.  e.,  its  last  stage,  as  distinct 
from  the  earlier,  was  first  made  by  Q. 

4.  This  taxing  was  before,   or  earlier  than,  the  governorship  of 

Q. 

5.  This  was  the  first  taxing  under  Q.  as  distinguished  from  a 
second,  either  {a)  under  him  (So  Meyer,  Zumpt) ;  or  (b)  under  another 
official  who  is  not  mentioned  (so  Woolsey). 

6.  This  taxhig  was  first  made  when  Q.  was  acting  officially  in 
Syria,  either  {</)  as  one  of  two  governors,  or  (h)  as  a  special  census 
agent. 

To  determine  the  right  rendering  of  Luke's  words  is  the  province 
of  exegesis,  and  it  is  evident  that  till  the  exegetes  are  agreed  much 
uncertainty  must  enter  into  our  historical  inquiries. 

We  will  assume  that  rendering  to  be  correct  which  affirms  that 
this  was  the  first  taxing  or  enrollment  under  Quirinius  as  distin- 
guished from  a  second  under  him.  But  for  several  of  the  other 
renderings  may  be  cited  names  of  very  high  authority. 


'  All  points  connected  with  Quirinius  have  been  most  thoroughly  discussed  by  Zumpt: 
first,  in  his  essay,  de  Syria  Romanoruni  I'rovinda.  in  the  second  vohime  of  his  Com- 
ment. Ejngr.,  ad  Antiq.  TiOm.  peitinent.,  Berol.,  1854;  second,  in  his  Z)«,<  G('biirt.-<}ahr 
Christi,  1869,  20-89.  They  are  also  discussed  by  Wieseler,  Beitrage,  18G9, 16-107;  by  Wool- 
sey, New  Englander,  1869,  682;  by  Schiirer,  art.  C^yrenius  in  Riehm;  Winer,  art.  Quirinius. 


78  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  I. 

We  now  inquire,  what  knowledge  have  we  of  Quirinius?  What 
we  know  is  chiefly  derived  from  Tacitus  (Anuals,  iii.  48).  He  was 
of  low  origin,  a  bold  soldier,  and  attained  a  consulship  under 
Augustus  in  742,  and  was  afterward  proconsul  in  the  province  ol 
Africa.  After  this  he  conquered  the  Homonadenses,  a  rude  people 
living  in  Cilicia,  and  obtained  a  triumph.  He  was  subsequently 
made  rector  to  Caius  Caesar  when  the  latter  was  appointed  governor 
of  Armenia.  At  what  time,  and  in  what  capacity,  did  he  carry  on 
the  war  against  the  Homonadenses?  There  is  no  question  that  it 
was  between  747  and  753,  for  in  the  last  year  he  was  made  rector  to 
C.  Caesar,  and  this  was  after  the  war.  In  what  capacity  did  he 
carry  it  on?  This  was  thoroughly  examined  by  Zumpt,  who  reached 
the  conclusion  that  he  was  then  acting  as  governor  of  Syria,  having 
succeeded  Varus  in  750,  and  continued  in  this  office  till  753.  In  the 
fact  of  this  governorship,  Mommsen,  Schiirer,  and  Woolsey  agree 
with  Zumpt. 

Taking,  then,  the  fact  as  sufficiently  established,  can  we  reach 
any  more  definite  result  as  to  the  time  of  this  governorship?  Zumpt 
gives  the  following  list  of  Syrian  governors: 

748-750,  6-4  B.  C,  P.  Q.  Varus. 

750-753,  4-1     "  P.  S.  Quirinius. 

753-757,  1  B.  C.-3  A.  C,     M.  Lollius. 

757-758,   3-4  "  C.  M.  Censorinus. 

758-760,  4-6  "  L.  V.  Saturninus. 

760-765,  6-11  "  P.  S.  Quirinius. 

With  the  accuracy  of  this  list,  in  general,  we  are  not  concerned;  our 
present  inquiry  is  only  as  to  the  length  of  the  first  administration  of 
Quirinius.  That  he  succeeded  Varus  in  750  is  accepted  by  Schiirer 
and  others.  He  is  not,  indeed,  mentioned  by  Josephus,  but  of 
what  took  place  during  the  rule  of  Archelaus,  750-760,  this  historian 
says  very  little,  nor  does  he  mention  the  name  of  any  Syrian  governor 
after  Varus  till  Quirinius  in  760.  We  have  thus  a  period  from  the 
end  of  the  administration  of  Varus,  proljably  in  summer  of  750,  to  760, 
when  Archelaus  was  d(?posed,  about  which  we  know  very  little. 

Comparing  this  list  of  Zumpt's  with  that  of  Schiirer  (I.  i.  350  ff.), 
we  find  some  chronological  ditferences.  The  following  is  the  ordei 
of  Schiirer : 

748-750,     6-4  B.  C, 

751-753?    3-2    " 

753-757,     1  B.  C.-4  A.  C. 

757-758,     4-5  A.  C, 

759-  6  " 


P. 

Q.  Varus. 

p. 

S.  Quirinius. 

C. 

Caesar. 

L. 

V.  Saturninus, 

P. 

S.  Quirinius. 

Part  1.]  TAXING  OF  AUGUSTUS.  79 

Schurer  thinks  that  as  Caesar  had  proconsular  authority,  there 
were  during  his  administration  no  governors  in  Syria.  This  is  said 
also  by  Woolsey  (New  Englander,  691).  Gerlach  (34)  does  not  insert 
Quirinius  in  his  list  of  Syrian  governors,  regarding  him  as  legatus 
Caesaris  proconsular i  potestute,  and  as  such  taking  the  census. 

If,  then,  we  accept,  as  historically  proved,  that  Quirinius  was 
governor  of  Syria  either  from  750-753  or  from  751-753,  of  what  im- 
portance is  this  fact  ? 

As  we  have  seen  in  the  chronological  discussion,  the  Lord  was 
born  about  the  end  of  749,  and  before  the  administration  of  Quirinius 
began;  and,  therefore,  the  enrollment  which  brought  the  Lord's  par- 
ents to  Bethlehem  could  not  have  been  under  him  as  governor  of  Syria, 
but  was  under  some  preceding  governor.  Why,  then,  does  Luke  men- 
tion the  name  of  Q.  in  connection  with  this  enrollment  ?  Two  ex- 
planations are  given :  First,  that  the  decree  was  issued,  and  the  pre- 
parations for  the  census  begun  under  Saturninus,  746-8,  or  under 
Varus,  748-50,  but  the  census  was  continued  and  finished  under 
Quirinius.  (See  Zumpt,  219.)  In  this  view  of  the  matter  there  is 
nothing  intrinsically  improbable.  The  census  taken  as  a  whole 
might  be  referred  to  Saturninus  who  began  it,  or  Quirinius  who 
finished  it. 

It  will  be  kept  in  mind  that  Luke  does  not  affirm  that  Q.  was 
governor  at  the  time  of  the  Lord's  birth  ;  he  affirms  a  decree 
of  Augustus,  and  that  He  was  born  after  the  decree  began  to  be  ex- 
ecuted in  Judaea.  It  is  evident  that  if  the  execution  of  the  decree, 
from  the  first  stage  to  the  last,  took  place  under  one  Syrian  governor- 
ship, then  He  was  born  under  it ;  but  if  the  execution  embraced  a  longer 
period.  He  might  have  been  born  under  an  earlier  administration. 
The  enrollment  might  have  been  begun  by  one,  and  been  continued 
by  a  second,  and  finished  by  a  third ;  the  mention  of  Q.  is  no  proof 
that  the  Lord  was  born  under  his  administration.  The  point  is  as  to 
the  execution  of  the  decree,  whether  begun  or  coraijleted  under  any 
one  governor. 

The  second  explanation  is  by  those  who  think  that  Quirinius,  in 
carrying  on  the  first  census,  was  not  governor  of  Syria,  but  acted  in 
some  other  official  capacity,  perhaps  as  procurator  or  fiscal  governor 
of  Syria.  (So  McClel.,  398.)  In  this  case  he  may  have  been  connected 
with  the  census  from  the  first.  Or  he  may  have  been  an  extraordi- 
nary commissioner  acting  under  Saturninus  or  Varus,  or  jointly  with 
them,  or  perhaps  as  their  official  superior:  or  as  governor  of  Syria  at 
the  same  time  with  Varus. 

We  can  readily  see  that  if  the  initial  steps  of  the  taxing  had  been 


80  THE  LIFE   OP  OUR  LORD.  L-fait  i. 

taken  under  Varus,  748-750,  and  that  under  him  just  at  the  close  ol 
his  administration  Joseph  and  j\Iary  were  enrolird,  and  the  liual  ste]is 
were  taken  under  the  governorship  of  Quiriuius,  Luke  might  well 
mention  the  name  of  Q.  only. 

We  come  now  to  the  much  disputed  question,  whether  the  state- 
ment of  Luke  as  to  the  application  of  this  policy  to  Judaea  at  this 
time  is  to  be  received  ?  The  objection  is  vigorously  urged  that 
Herod  was  a  rex  sociiis  —  an  allied  king,  and  that  all  taxes  in  his 
dominion  must,  therefore,  have  been  levied  by  himself.  (As  to  the 
position  of  a  rex  socius,  see  Schiirer,  I.  i.  1.  449.)  But  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  Herod  was  entitled,  in  fact,  to  be  called  a  rex  socius,  since  the 
term  means  one  allied,  in  commercial  language,  a  partner,  and  socii, 
the  nations  in  alliance  with  Rome.  Herod  was  wholly  the  creature 
of  Augustus;  originally  set  as  king,  not  as  having  any  hereditary 
claims,  or  being  even  of  Jewish  descent,  but  because  hs  could  be  a 
useful  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the  Romans.  He  was  hated  of  the 
Jews  both  as  an  alien  and  as  of  a  cruel  and  despotic  nature,  and  he 
held  the  throne  only  through  the  fear  which  the  Roman  supj^ort  in- 
spired. It  was  never  a  question  with  Augustus  what  Herod  wished, 
but  what  his  own  interests  demanded.  Josephus  mentions  many 
instances,  showing  how  far  he  was  subjected  all  his  reign  to  the 
emperor  and  to  his  representatives,  the  governors  of  Syria.  (Wies., 
Syn.,  96,  Beitrage,  79.)  A  clear  proof  of  this  is  seen  in  the  fact  that 
the  Jews  w^ere  forced  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  Augustus  as 
well  as  to  Herod.     (Joseph.,  Antiq.,  xvii.  2.  4.) 

To  say,  then,  that  Augustus  w^ould,  from  regard  to  any  royal 
rights  of  Herod,  make  him  an  exception,  and  not  carry  out  his 
general  policy  of  taxation  in  his  dominions,  is  to  make  the  Roman 
ruler  a  constitutional  monarch  of  the  modern  type,  and  to  attribute 
to  him  a  softness  of  disposition  which  is  indicated  by  iio  other  acts 
of  his  public  life.  And  there  may  have  been  special  reasons  why, 
before  the  death  of  Herod,  known  to  be  near  his  end,  and  his 
sons  quarreling  about  the  succession,  Augustus  should  have  had  this 
enrollment  made;  for  he  must  have  foreseen  the  probability,  if  he 
had  not  already  formed  the  determination,  that  his  kingdom  should 
speedily  be  made  a  Roman  province.  (As  to  taxation  in  allied  states, 
see  Zumpt,  183,  Schiirer,  I.  i.  451  note.) 

Winer  (ii.  399)  seems  to  be  wholly  in  the  right  in  saying,  that 
there  was  nothing  in  the  political  relations  of  Herod  that  would  have 
prevented  Augustus  from  applying  the  decree  to  his  territories.  In 
the  Breviarium  Imj)erii  mention  is  made  of  the  regna  et  socii,  show- 
ing that  they  were  included  in  the  new  policy  of  Augustus. 


Part  1.]  TAXING  OF  AUGUSTUS.  81 

Nor  was  the  payment  of  tribute  to  the  Romans  a  thing  to  which 
the  Jews  were  unaccustomed.  They  had  been  from  the  time  of  Pom- 
pey  treated  as  a  conquered  people  rather  than  as  allies.  When  first 
brought  into  subjection  by  him,  very  heavy  exactions  were  made, 
and  later  by  Crassus.  (Josejih.,  Antiq.,  xiv.  4.  5.)  It  needs  only  a 
careful  persual  of  the  decrees  of  Caesar  and  the  Senate  (Joseph.,  xiv. 
10.  2-6)  to  see  that  the  Romans  looked  upon  Judaja  as  a  conquered 
])rovince  which  had  only  such  rights  as  they  chose  to  confirm. 
[.Joseph.,  War,  ii.  16;  Wies.,  Beitrage,  69  etc.,  and  Stud.  u.  Krit., 
1875,  536.) 

Whether  the  .Jews  under  Herod  paid  regular  taxes  to  the  Romans 
is  in  dispute.  A  distinction  is  doubtless  to  be  taken  between  tribute 
and  tax.  It  is  admitted  that  Herod  paid  tribute  to  Antony,  but 
denied  by  Schiirer  that  he  paid  taxes  to  Augustus.  But  it  is  said  by 
Wieseler  (Beitrage,  98)  that  a  jooU  tax  was  imposed  by  Julius 
Caesar  as  early  as  707,  and  continued  to  be  enforced.  (As  to  taxes  in 
general,  see  Winer,  i.  5;  Woolsey,  Bib.  Sacra,  309;  and  the  Bible 
Dictionaries.)  Zumpt  (201)  affirms  that  the  first  registration  at  the 
Lord's  birth  was  of  persons,  and  that  this  was  a  new  thing,  as  the 
Jews  had  probably  at  this  time  paid  no  capitation  tax ;  but  the  second 
registration,  after  the  deposition  of  Archelaus,  was  of  property,  and 
conducted  after  the  Roman  manner.  It  is  said  by  Schiirer  (Riehm, 
s.  V.  Cyrenius)  that  Palestine  was  an  independent  kingdom,  put, 
indeed,  under  the  supervision  of  the  governor  of  Syria,  but  not  under 
the  immediate  administration  of  the  Roman  officials.  The  last  point 
may  be  admitted,  and  the  fact  remain  that  Herod  was  himself  little 
more  than  a  Roman  official,  having  a  certain  liberty  of  action, 
but  in  no  true  sense  of  the  term  an  independent  king.  Whether 
under  him  capitation  and  land  taxes  had  been  paid  to  the  Romans 
does  not  materially  affect  th?  jDoint  that  Augustus,  near  the  close 
of  Herod's  life,  may  have  ordered  an  enrollment  to  be  taken  in 
his  dominions.  It  would  be  a  matter  of  course  that  as  time  went  on, 
and  Roman  institutions  found  more  and  more  entrance,  the  system 
of  taxation  in  the  provinces  would  take  on  it  more  and  more  of 
Roman  modes. 

We  conclude  upon  this  much-disputed  matter  of  the  taxing,  that 
we  have  not  sufficient  material,  aside  from  Luke's  statements,  for  a 
decisive  judgment  either  as  to  its  nature  or  as  to  the  connection  of 
Quirinius  with  it.  But  it  may  be  said  that  as  our  historical  knowledge 
has  been  enlarged  by  new  investigations,  the  accuracy  of  the  Evangel- 
ist has  been  rather  confirmed  than  weakened.  It  is  evident  that  the 
last  word  as  to  these  questions  has  not  yet  been  spoken. 
4.* 


82  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  L 

If  Joseph  and  Mary  went  to  Bethlehem  to  be  enrolled  in  the  tax  list, 
does  it  show  that  they,  one  or  both,  had  property  there?  It  is  said  by 
Luke  that  "all  went  to  be  taxed,  every  one  to  his  own  city  " ;  his  own, 
not  necessarily  as  having  been  born  there,  or  as  having  possessions 
there,  but  as  the  original  family  seat — forum  originis.  The  ground 
on  which  Joseph  went,  was  that  "he  was  of  the  house  and  lineage 
of  David."  Woolsey  (Bib.  Sacra,  715)  thinks  there  is  "no  proof 
that,  after  the  return  from  captivity,  lands  reverted  to  particular 
tribes  or  families."  It  is  only  conjecture  whether  Joseph  owned 
any  land  at  Bethlehem.  But  it  is  not  improbable,  as  said  by  him, 
that  "the  principle  of  the  tribe  and  lineage  should  be  followed  in 
the  operations  of  the  census."  And  Roman  usage  seems  to  confirm 
this,  if  we  give  credit  to  Edersheim  (i.  183,  who  refers  to  Huschke). 
"According  to  the  Roman  law,  all  country  people  went  to  be 
registered  in  their  own  city,  meaning  thereljy  the  town  to  which  the 
village  or  place  where  they  were  born  was  attached."  (As  to  the 
distinction  in  this  respect  between  Roman  and  Jewish  usages,  Zumpt, 
194.)  It  has  been  said  that  Mary  was  the  owner  of  land  there,  but 
there  is  no  evidence  whatever  of  it.  It  may  be  that  the  capitation 
tax,  which  was  probably  levied  upon  all  alike,  male  and  female,  may 
have  made  it  necessary  for  her  to  go  with  Joseph,  but  this  is  not 
certain  (so  Zumpt,  204) ;  probably  she  was  moved  by  other  consider- 
ations. 

December,  749.     5  B.  C. 

Upon  the  arrival  of  Joseph  and  Mary  at  Bethelem,  they  could  Luke  ii.  6-7. 
find  no  room  at  the  inn,  and  took  refuge  in  a  stable  where  the 
babe  was  born,  and  laid  in  the  manger. 

The  village  of  Bethlehem,  "  house  of  bread,"  lies  about  five 
miles  south  of  Jerusalem  on  the  way  to  Hebron.  There  was 
another  city  or  village  of  this  name  in  Zebulon  (Josh.  xix.  15), 
whence  this  is  called,  to  distinguish  it,  Bethlehem- Jud ah.  It  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  catalogues  of  the  cities  of  Judah.  In  Gen- 
esis (xlviii.  7)  it  is  called  Ephrath,  and  in  Micah  (v.  2)  Ephratah — 
an  epithet  given  it  because  of  its  fruitfulness.  It  appears  in 
Scripture  chiefly  in  connection  with  the  house  of  David,  and 
seems  never  to  have  been  a  place  of  much  importance.  "  The 
Jews  are  very  silent  of  this  city  ;  nor  do  I  remember  that  I 
have  read  anything  in  them  concerning  it  besides  those  things 
which  are  produced  out  of  the  Old  Testament"  (Lightfoot). 
Micah  speaks  of  it  as  little  amongst  the  thousands  of  Judah.     It 


Fart  I.J  BETHLEHEM.  83 

was  here  that  the  fields  of  Boaz  lay,  in  which  Ruth  gleaned 
(Ruth  ii.  4);  and  here  the  son  of  Obed  was  born.  Hither  came 
Samuel,  and  anointed  the  youthful  David  to  be  the  successor  of 
Saul.  That  the  Messiah  should  be  born  here  was  expressly  de- 
clared by  the  prophet  Micali  (v.  2  ) ;  and  the  Jews  seem  to  have 
had  no  question  as  to  his  meaning,  nor  ever  to  have  doubted  the 
literal  fulfilhnent  of  the  prophecy.     (Matt.  ii.  6  ;   John  vii.  42.) 

Bethlehem  lies  on  the  eastern  brow  of  a  ridge  that  runs 
from  east  to  west,  a  mile  in  length,  and  is  surrounded  by  hills. 
From  the  highest  point  of  the  ridge  —  2,537  feet  —  there  is  an 
extensive  view  toward  the  south  and  east,  in  the  direction  of 
Jericho,  the  Dead  Sea,  and  the  mountains  of  Moab  beyond. 
There  are  deep  valleys  both  on  the  south  and  north  ;  that  on 
the  north  stretches  toward  Jerusalem,  and  in  it  olives,  figs,  al- 
mond-groves, and  vineyards  are  found.  The  village  has  one 
street,  broad,  but  not  thickly  built.  The  present  inhabitants  are 
chiefly  occupied  in  the  manufacture  of  holy  trinkets  and  relics, 
beads,  crosses,  etc.,  for  the  pilgrims  who  visit  Jerusalem.  There 
are  no  Jews  living  here,  and  it  is  said  that  a  Protestant  church 
and  hospice  are  soon  to  be  built. 

The  exact  spot  where  the  Lord  was  born  has  been  the  sub- 
ject of  earnest  investigation  and  of  zealous  controversy.  All 
the  information  upon  this  point  that  the  Scriptures  give,  is  con- 
tained in  the  words  of  Luke,  that  when  Joseph  and  Mary  ar- 
rived at  Bethlehem,  they  could  find  no  place  at  the  inn,  or  khan, 
Kara Avjua,' and  that  when  Jesus  was  born,  she  was  compelled  to 
put  the  new-born  babe  in  a  manger,  (pdrvrj.  From  this  state- 
ment some  have  inferred  that  the  manger  was  in  a  stall  con- 
nected with  the  inn  itself  ;  ^  but  this  is  hardly  consistent  with 
other  features  of  the  narrative.  That  the  place  in  which  she 
took  refuge  was  a  stall,  or  room  where  cattle  were  lodged,  may 
fairly  be  inferred  from  the  mention  of  a  manger.  Keil  supposes 
that  some  friendly  hosts  received  them,  and  gave  them  the  stable, 
then  empty,  the  cattle  being  in  the  fields. 

The  place  now  shown  as  the  Lord's  birthplace  is  a  cave 
southeast   from   the  town,   and   covered  by  the  Latin  convent. 


1  This  is  understood  by  Geikie  to  be  "  a  guest-chamber,"  as  in  Mark  xiv.  14;  but  see 
T.  G.  Lex.,  and  Edersheim,  i.  185. 

8  Wi]soD,  Lands  of  the  Bible,  i.  302  ;  Kitto,  Life  of  Christ,  62  ;  Farrar. 


84  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LuRD.  [Part  I. 

The  tradition  that  connects  this  cave  witli  His  birth  is  very 
ancient.'  Robinson  (ii.  416)  speaks  of  it  as  -'reaching  back  at 
least  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century.''  Justin  Martyr  (150 
A.  D.)  mentions  it  ;  as  also  Origen  about  a  hundred  years  later. 
Queen  Helena  erected  a  church  over  it  (325  A.  D.).  Here 
came  Jerome  (368  A.  D.),  and  dwelt  for  many  years.  So  far 
then  as  early  tradition  can  authenticate  a  place,  this  seems  well 
authenticated.''  Edershcim  says,'  "the  best  authenticated  of  all 
local  traditions."  So  Farrar,  Ellicott.  Yet  there  are  objections 
which  have  led  many  to  deny  the  truth  of  the  tradition.^  The 
point  then  demands  some  further  examination. 

The  objection,  that  Luke  says  nothing  of  a  cave,  is  not  important. 
His  2")urpose  is  simply  to  show  the  humble  and  friendless  state  of  the 
infant  child,  and  this  is  done  by  the  mention  of  the  circumstances 
that  there  was  no  room  for  His  parents  in  the  inn,  and  that  when  He 
was  born  He  was  laid  in  a  manger.  Any  other  particulars  were,  for 
his  purpose,  unnecessary. 

A  more  important  objection  is  that  drawn  from  the  fact,  that  tra- 
dition makes  caves  or  grottoes  to  be  the  sites  of  so  many  remarkable 
events.  That,  as  was  long  ago  said  by  Maundrell,  "wherever  you 
go,  you  find  almost  everything  represented  as  done  under  ground," 
naturally  awakens  our  incredulity.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
could  not  have  been  so  generally  selected  for  such  sites,  unless  there 
were  some  grounds  of  fitness  in  the  selection.  The  Scriptures, 
Josephus,  and  all  travellers  speak  of  the  numerous  caves  that  are 
found  throughout  Palestine.  They  were  used  for  dwellings,  for 
fortresses  and  places  of  refuge,  for  cisterns,  for  prisons,  and  for  sep- 
ulchres. Travellers  used  them  as  inns,  robbers  as  dens,  herdsmen 
as  stalls,  husbandmen  as  granaries.  Many  of  these  caves  were 
very  large.  One  is  mentioned  (Judges  xx.  47)  large  enough  for  six 
hundred  men.  Bonar,*  in  reference  to  the  cave  of  Adullam,  says 
"  you  might  spend  days  in  exploring  these  vast  apartments,  for  the 
whole  mountain  seems  excavated,  or,  rather,  honey-combed. "  Pococke 
speaks  of  one  large  enough  for  thirty  thousand  men. 

These  caves,  so  numerous  in  the  light  limestone  formation  of 
Judsea,  and  easily  wrought  into  any  shape,  and  always  dry,  were 
naturally  thus  applied  to  many  uses.  We  need  not  be  surprised  to 
find  them  connectea  wHh  many  remarkable  events   and  hallowed  by 


1  See  Thilo,  Codex  Apoc,  i.  381,  note. 

-  See  a  full  statement  of  the  evidence  in  Patritius,  iii.  293. 

3  So  Ritter,  Robinson.  ■*  Land  of  Promise.  346. 


Part  L]  CAVE  OP  THE  NATIVITY.  85 

sacred  associations.  The  traditions  that  connect  them  with  tlie  history 
of  Jesus  are  neither  to  be  indiscriminately  received,  nor  indiscrimi- 
nately rejected.  Whether  a  particular  event  did,  or  did  not,  take 
place  in  a  grotto  is  to  be  judged  of  according  to  its  intrinsic  prob- 
ability, and  the  amount  of  evidence.  "While  no  unprejudiced  per- 
son will  be  disposed  to  put  the  site  of  the  Annunciation  to  Mary,  or 
of  the  Agony,  or  of  the  Ascension,  in  a  cave,  yet  all  recognize  the  cave 
as  a  fitting  place  for  the  sepulchre.  Whether  a  cave  (either  isolated 
or  part  of  a  house)  was,  or  not,  the  birthplace  of  the  Lord,  must  be 
judged  of  by  its  own  merits. 

Thus  looking  upon  this  tradition,  we  find  no  suflicient  reason  why 
it  should  be  wholly  rejected.  Probably  there  is  some  measure  of 
truth  in  it.  It  is  indeed  hard  to  believe  that  the  present  artificial  cave, 
so  deep  down  and  inaccessible,  could  ever  have  been  used  as  a  stall  for 
cattle.  Pcrliaps  the  fact  may  be  that  the  cave,  in  its  original  shape, 
was  connected  with  a  house,  forming  its  rear  apartment,  and  used  as 
a  stable.  (So  Tristram.)  To  this  house  went  Joseph  and  Mary,  when 
they  could  find  no  room  at  the  inn,  and  when  the  child  was  born,  it 
was  laid  in  the  manger  as  the  most  convenient  place.  Arculf  (A.  D. 
700),' describing  the  cave  as  it  was  in  his  day,  says:  "At  the  ex- 
treme eastern  angle  (of  the  ridge)  there  is  a  sort  of  natural  half- 
cave,  the  outer  part  of  which  is  said  to  have  been  the  place  of  our 
Lord's  birth  ;  the  inside  is  called  our  Lord's  manger.  The  whole  of 
this  cave  is  covered  within  with  precious  marble."  Willibald  (A.  D. 
722)  says  :  "The  place  where  Christ  was  born  was  once  a  cave  under 
the  earth,  but  it  is  now  a  square  house  cut  in  the  rock,  and  the 
earth  is  dug  up  and  thrown  from  it  all  around,  and  a  church  is  now 
built  above  it."  Thus  the  small  cave  that  originally  existed  in  the 
rear  of  the  dwelling,  and  was  used  as  a  stable,  has  been  gradually 
converted  into  its  present  shape. 

This  view  of  the  matter  is  defended  by  Thomson  (ii.  533) :  "It 
is  not  impossible,  to  say  the  least,  but  that  the  apartment  in  which 
our  Saviour  was  born  was  in  fact  a  cave.  I  have  seen  many  such, 
consisting  of  one  or  more  rooms  in  front  of,  and  including  a  cavern 
where  the  cattle  were  kept.  It  is  my  impression  that  the  birth  ac- 
tually took  place  in  an  ordinary  house  of  some  common  peasant,  and 
that  the  babe  was  laid  in  one  of  the  mangers,  such  as  are  still  found 
in  the  dwellings  of  the  farmers  of  this  region.  That  house  may 
have  stood  where  the  convent  does  now,  and  some  sort  of  a  cave, 
either  natural  or  made  by  digging  the  earth  away  for  building  and 
for  the  roofs  of  houses,  may  have  been  directly  below,  or  even  ia- 


Early  Travels,  6. 


86  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  L 

eluded  within  its  court."  Elsewhere  (ii.  98)  he  thus  speaks  of  the 
niaugcr,  which  he  identities  with  the  "m&"  —  (pdrvr]  —  mentioned  bj^ 
Isaiah  (i.  3):  "  It  is  common  to  find  two  sides  of  the  one  room,  where 
the  native  farmer  resides  with  his  cattle,  titted  up  with  these  man- 
gers, and  the  remainder  elevated  about  two  feet  higher  for  the  ac- 
commodation of  the  family.  The  mangers  are  built  of  small  stones 
and  mortar  in  the  sha2:)e  of  a  box,  or  rather  of  a  kneading-trough,  and 
when  cleaned  up  and  white-washed,  as  they  often  are  in  summer, 
they  do  very  well  to  lay  little  babes  in.  Indeed,  our  own  children 
have  slept  there  in  our  rude  summer  retreats  on  the  mountains." 

We  may  then  conclude  that  tradition  has  not,  in  this  case, 
erred.  The  site  of  the  Lord's  birthplace  must  long  have  been 
remembered  by  the  shepherds  (Luke  ii.  16),  and  been  generally 
known  in  the  region  round.  But  the  present  condition  of  the 
cave  is  doubtless  very  unlike  its  original  condition.  It  has  been 
greatly  enlarged  and  deepened,  and  space  made  in  various  di- 
rections for  the  various  accessory  grottoes  and  sepulchres  which 
are  now  shown.  In  this  way  all  the  statements  of  Luke  can  be 
easily  reconciled  with  the  tradition.  Here  was  the  cave  in  the 
rear  of  the  house,  and  used  for  cattle.  In  a  manger,  as  the  most 
ready  and  fitting  place,  the  babe  was  laid.  Hither  came  the  shep- 
herds to  pay  their  adorations.  (Whether  Joseph  and  Mary  were 
still  here  when  the  Magi  came,  some  weeks  later,  is  not  certain ; 
perhaps  they  had  removed  to  some  house  —  Matt.  ii.  II  — 
though  this  may  have  been  that  connected  with  the  cave.)  These 
remarkable  events  would  not  easily  pass  from  men's  memories, 
and  some  knowledge  of  the  spot  where  they  occurred  could  not 
well  have  escaped  the  early  disciples 

The  church  th^t  now  stands  over  the  cave  of  the  nativity 
was  built  by  the  Emperor  Justinian  upon  the  site  of  that  built 
by  the  Empress  Helena,  A.  D.  330."  Adjoining  it  are  the  Latin, 
Greek,  and  Armenian  convents,  whose  monks  have  a  common 
interest  in  it  for  purposes  of  worship.  It  is  now  much  dilapi- 
dated, though,  as  the  oldest  Christian  church  in  the  world,  it 
continues  to  possess  great  architectural  interest.^  The  cave  of  the 
nativity  is  38  feet  long  by  11  wide,  and  a  silver  star  in  a  mar- 
ble slab  at  the  eastern  end  marks  the  precise  spot  where  the 


1  ToWer's  Bethlehem,  104. 

2  For  a  plan  of  it  and  the  crypt,  see  Baed.,  246  ;   Trisirnni,  H.  V.,  74 


Part  I.]  THE   ANGEL  AND   SHEPHERDS.  87 

Lord  was  born.  Here  is  the  inscription  :  Hie  de  virgine  Maria  Jesus 
Christus  natus  est.  Silver  lamps  are  always  burning  around,  and 
an  altar  stands  near,  which  is  used  in  turn  by  the  monks  of  the 
convents  The  manger  in  which  the  Lord  was  laid  was  taken 
to  Rome  by  Pope  Sixtus  V.,  and  placed  in  the  church  of  St. 
Maria  Maggiore,  but  its  place  is  supplied  by  a  marble  one.  A 
few  feet  opposite,  an  altar  marks  the  spot  where  the  Magi  stood. 
The  walls  are  covered  with  silken  hangings. 

The  usual  exaggeration  of  tradition  may  be  seen  in  the 
many  apocryphal  sites  gathered  around  the  central  one.  In  ad- 
joining grottoes  are  shown  the  chapel  of  Joseph  and  the  chapel 
of  the  Innocents,  where  the  children  murdered  by  Herod  were 
buried.  A  stone  is  also  shown  that  marks  the  spot  where,  in 
the  firmament  above,  the  star  stood  still  that  guided  the  Magi  in 
their  journey.  Of  more  interest  to  the  Christian  scholar  is  the 
cave,  now  converted  into  a  chapel,  where  Jerome  lived,  studied, 
and  prayed  (386-420  A.  D.).  It  is  said  by  Stanley  (436),  that 
during  the  invasion  of  Ibrahim  Pasha  the  Arabs  took  possession 
of  the  convent,  and  found  by  the  removal  of  the  marbles,  etc., 
with  which  it  was  encased,  that  the  grotto  of  the  nativity  was 
an  ancient  sepulchre.  If  this  were  so,  it  is  highly  improbable 
that  Joseph  and  Mary  would  have  entered  it.  But  the  statement 
needs  confirmation.     (See  contra,  Farrar.) 

That  the  Lord  was  born  very  soon  after  their  arrival  at 
Bethlehem,  maybe  fairly  inferred  from  the  fact  that  "  there 
was  no  room  for  them  in  the  inn." 

December,  749.     5  B.  C. 

The  same  night  upon  which  He  was  born,  an  Angel  of  the  Luke  ii.  8-20. 
Lord  appeared  to  some  shepherds,  who  were  keeping  watch  over 
their  flocks,  and  announced  to  them  His  birth.     Leaving  their 
flocks,  they  hastened  to  Bethlehem  to  see  the  child,  and  finding 
Him,  returned,  praising  God. 

The  bearing  of  the  fact  that  the  shepherds  were  in  the  field 
watching  their  flocks,  upon  the  date  of  the  Lord's  birth,  has  been 
already  examined. 

The  residence  of  the  shepherds  is  not  mentioned,  nor  do  we 
know  the  place  where  they  were  keeping  watch.  It  appears  to 
have  been  in  the  vicinity  of  Bethlehem,  and  yet  some   little  dis- 


88  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  I. 

tance  removed.  There  is  now,  a  mile  or  more  east  from  the 
convent,  a  plain  in  which  is  a  little  village  called  the  Village  of 
the  Shepherds.  Not  far  from  this  village  is  pointed  out  the 
field  whei'e,  it  is  said,  they  were  feeding  their  flocks,  and  here  is 
shown  a  grotto,  called  the  Grotto  of  the  Shepherds.  In  this 
field  a  church  was  built  by  the  Empress  Helena.  In  its  neigh- 
borhood stood  formerly  a  cloister,  but  now  only  ruins  of  a 
church  or  cloister  are  to  be  found.  It  is  mentioned  by  Bernard. 
A.  D.  867.'  "One  mile  from  Bethlehem  is  the  monastery  of  the 
holy  shepherds  to  whom  the  angel  appeared  at  our  Lord's  nativ- 
ity." About  half  a  mile  north  from  the  church  Migdal 
Eder,  or  "  Tower  of  the  flock,"  is  said  to  have  stood.  (See  Itinera 
Hierosolymitana.  Sepp.  i,  212.)  Tradition  makes  the  number 
of  shepherds  three  or  four,  and  gives  their  names.'' 

It  is  said  by  Edersheim  (i.  186),  that  it  was  a  firm  belief  of 
the  Jews,  that  the  Messiah  should  be  revealed  from  Migdal  Eder, 
"the  tower  of  the  flock"  (Gen.  xxxv.  21).  "This  Migdal  Eder 
was  not  the  watch-tower  of  the  ordinary  flocks  which  pastured 
on  the  barren  sheep  ground  beyond  Bethlehem,  but  lay  close  to 
the  town,  on  the  road  to  Jerusalem.  A  passage  in  the  Mishnah 
leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  flocks  that  pastured  there  were 
destined  for  temple  sacrifices  ;  and,  accordingly,  that  the  shep- 
herds who  watched  over  them  were  not  ordinary  shepherds." 
He  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  shepherds  were  under  the  ban 
of  Rabbinism  because  of  their  calling,  which  necessarily  kept 
them  away  from  the  temple  services,  and  prevented  them  from 
a  strict  observance  of  the  law  ;  and  cites  the  Mishnah  to  show  that 
the  keeping  of  flocks,  except  those  for  the  temple,  was  forbidden 
throughout  the  land  of  Israel,  except  in  the  wilderness.  (See 
Wies.,  Beitriige,  172.) 

But  did  not  those  flocks  fed  in  the  wilderness  return  in  the 
winter  months  to  the  villages  ?  This  is  said  by  Lightfoot  on 
Rabbinic  authority,  but  Edersheim  finds,  on  like  higher  author- 
ity, that  the  wilderness  flocks  remained  in  the  open  all  the  year 
round  ;  the  other  flocks  pastured  near  the  towns  were  destined 
for   temple   sacrifice.     (See   Eders.,  Sketches  of  Jewish  life,  80.) 


1  Early  Travels,  29.  2  Hofmann,  107  ;  Maldouatus,  2. 

8  See  Thilo,  Codex  Apoc,  i.  385,  note. 


Part  I.]  PRESENTATION  OF  JESUS.  89 

If  this  be  SO;  and  the  flock  at  Bethlehem  was  for  the  temple,  its 
shepherds  cannot  be  regarded  as  ordinary  shepherds.  From 
their  place  as  keepers  of  the  sacrificial  flocks,  they  must  have 
been  often  at  the  temple,  and  in  constant  intercourse  with  the 
Levites  and  priests.  The  manifestation  of  the  angels  to  them 
would  thus  be  very  early  known  to  all  those  at  the  temple. 
Every  argument  against  the  Lord's  birth  in  December,  di'awn 
from  the  fact  that  the  shepherds  were  then  in  the  field,  thus  loses 
its  force. 

Januaey — February,  750.     4  B.  C, 

Upon  the  eighth  day  following  His  birth,  the  Lord  was  cir-  Luke  ii.  21. 
cumcised,  and  the  name  Jesus  given  Him.    Forty  days  after  the 
birth,  Mary  presented  herself  with  the  child  at  the  Temple  in  Luke  ii.  22-38. 
accordance  with  the  law,  and  after  the  presentation  returned 
again  to  Bethlehem. 

The  order  of  events  following  Christ's  birth  to  the  time  He 
went  to  reside  at  Nazareth,  is  much  disputed.  The  chief  point 
of  controversy  is  respecting  the  time  of  the  visit  of  the  Magi. 
If  this  can  be  determined,  the  other  events  may  be  easily 
arranged. 

An  early  and  current  tradition  placed  the  coming  of  the 
Magi  on  the  6th  of  January,  or  on  the  13th  day  after  His  birth.' 
In  that  case,  supposing  that  the  star  announced  His  birth,  and 
that  they  left  soon  after  its  appearing,  they  were  only  some  ten 
days  on  their  journey.  This  day  was  early  celebrated  as  the 
feast  of  the  Epiphany,  or  the  manifestation  of  Christ,  and  orig- 
inally had  reference  to  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  and  to  His  baptism; 
and  later,  to  His  first  miracle.  It  is  now  observed  both  in  the 
Greek  and  Roman  Churches  with  reference  to  the  two  former 
events,  of  which  the  adoration  of  the  Magi  is  made  most  promi- 
nent. This  is  also  the  case  in  the  English  and  American  Episcopal 
Churches.  But  the  tradition  did  not  command  universal  assent. 
Eusebius  and  Epiphanius,  reasoning  from  Matt.  ii.  16,  put  the 
coming  of  the  Magi  two  years  after  His  birth.  And  others  have 
thought  the  6th  of  January  selected  for  convenience,  rather  than 
as  having  any  direct  chronological  connection  with  the  event. 


1  See  Thilo,  Codex  Apoc,  i.  385,  note. 


90  THE  LIFE   OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  I. 

The  apocryphal  gospel  of  the  birth  of  Mary  puts  their  coming 
on  the  forty-second  day,  or  after  the  presentation,  but  some  cop- 
ies on  the  thirteenth,' 

If  we  now  ask  the  grounds  upon  which,  aside  from  this  tra- 
dition, the  coming  of  the  wise  men  is  placed  so  soon  after  the 
birth,  and  before  the  presentation  in  the  Temple,  the  more  impor- 
tant are  these:  first,  that  the  words  rov  de  'hjoov  yevvrjdtvrog, 
"  now  when  Jesus  was  born"  (Matt.  ii.  1),  imply  that  the  one 
event  speedily  followed  the  other,  the  participle  being  in  the 
aorist  and  not  in  the  perfect ;  second,  that  directly  after  the  pre- 
sentation, Jesus  went  with  His  parents  to  Nazareth  (Luke  ii.  39), 
and  that  therefore  the  presentation  must  have  been  preceded 
by  their  visit;  third,  that  at  the  coming  of  the  Magi,  Herod  first 
heard  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  but  if  the  presentation  at  the  Tem- 
ple had  previously  taken  place,  he  must  have  heard  of  it,  as  it 
had  been  made  public  by  Anna  (Luke  ii.  38).  But  none  of  these 
reasons  is  decisive.  There  is  nothing,  as  asserted,  in  the  use  of 
yevvTjdevTog,  "  now  when  Jesus  was  born,"  that  proves  that  they 
came  as  soon  as  He  was  born,  or  that  an  interval  of  two  months 
may  not  have  elapsed.^  The  opinion  of  many  of  the  fathers 
that  they  found  Him  still  in  the  manger,  or  stall,  in  spelunca  ilia 
qua  natus  est,  may  be  true,  if  the  manger  was  in  a  cave  in  the 
rear  of  the  house.  (See  Matt.  ii.  11.)  The  statement  of  Luke, 
that  "  when  they  had  performed  all  things  according  to  the  law 
of  the  Lord,  they  returned  into  Galilee,  to  their  own  city  Naza- 
reth," has  often  been  interpreted  as  affirming  that  they  went 
directly  from  the  Temple  to  Nazareth  without  any  return  to 
Bethlehem.^  But  this  interpretation  is  arbitrary.  It  is  appar- 
ent that  Luke  does  not  design  to  give  a  full  history  of  Christ's 
infancy.  He  says  nothing  of  the  Magi,  of  the  murder  of  the 
children,  of  the  flight  into  Egypt.  "Whatever  may  have  been  the 
motive  of  this  omission,  which  Alford,  in  common  with  many 
German  ci'itics,  ascribes  to  ignorance,  nothing  can  be  inferred 
from  it  to  the  impugning  of  Luke's  accuracy.  His  statement 
respecting  the  return  to  Galilee  is  general,  and  does  not  imply 
any  strict  chronological  connection.     Elsewhere  in  Luke   like 


1  Hofmann,  126.  '  gpe  Gal.  iv.  29,  and  Meyer,  in  loco. 

8  So  early.  Chrysostom:  and  now.  A.  Clarke  and  Meyer. 


Part  I.]  PRESENTATION  OF  JESUS.  91 

instances  occur,  as  in  iv.  14,  where  Jesus  is  said  to  have  "re- 
turned in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  into  Galilee,"  whence  it  would 
appear  that  this  return  followed  immediately  upon  the  tempta- 
tion; yet  we  know  that  an  interval  of  many  months  must  have 
elapsed.  It  is  the  fact  that  His  childhood  was  passed  at  Naza- 
]-eth,  which  Luke  brings  prominently  forward,  not  the  precise 
time  when  He  went  thither,  which  was  unimportant.  It  is  not 
inconsistent  with  his  language  that  His  parents  should  have  re- 
turned to  Bethlehem  from  the  Temple,  an  afternoon  walk  of  two 
hours,  and  have  gone  thence  to  Nazareth  by  way  of  Egypt,  though 
had  we  this  gospel  alone,  we  could  not  infer  this.  Besides,  it  is 
apparent  from  Matthew's  narrative  (ii.  22-3),  that  Joseph  did 
not  design  upon  his  return  from  Egypt  to  go  to  Galilee,  and 
went  thither  only  by  express  divine  direction.  Plainly  he  looked 
upon  Bethlehem,  not  Nazareth,  as  the  proper  home  of  the  child 
who  should  be  the  heir  of  David.  ^  And  finally  the  fact  that 
Anna  "  spoke  of  Him  to  all  them  that  looked  for  redemption  in 
Jerusalem,"  by  no  means  shows  that  her  words  came  to  the  ears 
of  Herod.  The  number  of  those  who  shared  the  faith  of 
Simeon  and  Anna  was  doubtless  few,  and  the  birth  of  Jesus  was 
not  an  event  which  they  would  blazon  abroad  before  the  Pharisees 
and  Herod. 

Those  who  thus  place  the  visit  of  the  Magi  before  the  purifi- 
cation of  Mary  and  the  presentation  of  Jesus,  are  by  no  means 
agreed  as  to  the  time  of  the  latter  events.  If  the  visit  of  the 
Magi  was  on  the  thirteenth  day  after  His  birth,  and  the  murder 
of  the  children  and  the  flight  into  Egypt  took  place  immediately 
after,  the  purification  must  have  been  delayed  till  the  return,  and 
so  in  any  event  after  the  legal  time  on  the  fortieth  day.'  To 
avoid  this,  some  suppose  that,  although  the  suspicions  of  Herod 
had  been  aroused  by  the  inquiries  of  the  Magi,  yet  he  took  no 
active  measures  for  the  destruction  of  the  child,  till  the  rumor  of 
what  had  taken  place  at  the  Temple  at  the  time  of  the  presenta- 
tion (Luke  ii.  27-38)  reaching  his  cars,  stirred  him  up  to  give 
immediate  orders  for  the  murder  of  the  children.^  Others  still, 
making  the  departure  to  Nazareth  to  have  immediately  followed 


1  See  Wieseler,  154.  2  Friedlieb,  Bucher. 

3  Augustine,  Sepp,  Alford. 


92  THE   LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  1 

the  purification,  are  compelled  to  make  Nazareth,  not  Bethlehem, 
the  starting  point  of  the  flight  into  Egypt.' 

The  obvious  difficulties  connected  with  this  traditional  view 
of  the  coming  of  the  wise  men  on  the  thirteenth  day  after  the 
Lord's  birth,  have  led  most  in  modern  times  to  put  it  after  the 
purification  on  the  fortieth  day.  Some,  holding  that  Jesus 
went  immediately  after  that  event  to  Nazareth,  su]ipose  that 
after  a  short  sojourn  there  He  returned  to  Bethlehem,  and  there 
was  found  by  the  wise  men.^  But  most  who  put  the  purifica- 
tion upon  the  fortieth  day,  make  the  visit  of  the  Magi  to  have 
shortly  followed,  and  prior  to  any  departure  to  Nazareth.^  And 
this  order  seems  best  to  harmonize  the  scripture  narratives.  The 
language  of  Luke  ii.  22,  compared  with  verse  21,  plainly  intimates 
that,  as  the  circumcision  took  place  on  the  eighth,  or  legal  day, 
so  did  the  presentation  on  the  fortieth.  The  feast  of  the  Purifi- 
cation is  observed  by  both  Eastern  and  Western  churches  on  the 
2d  of  February.  Till  this  day,  the  mother  was  regarded  as  un- 
clean and  was  to  abide  at  home,  and  it  is  therefore  very 
improbable  that  the  adoration  of  the  Magi,  and  especially  the 
flight  into  Egypt,  should  have  previously  taken  place  Doubt- 
less, in  case  of  necessity,  all  the  legal  requisitions  could  have 
been  set  aside,  but  this  necessity  is  not  proved  in  this  case  to 
have  existed.  That  the  purification  was  after  the  return  from 
Egypt,  is  inconsistent  with  Matthew's  statements  (ii.  22),  that 
after  Joseph  had  heard  that  Archelaus  was  reigning  in  Judaea, 
he  was  afraid  to  go  thither.  If,  then,  he  dared  not  even  enter 
the  king's  territory,  how  much  less  would  he  dare  to  go  to  Jeru- 
salem, and  enter  publicly  into  the  temple.  The  conjecture  of 
some,<  that  Archelaus  was  then  absent  at  Rome,  is  wholly  with- 
out historic  proof. 

That  Matthew  puts  the  flight  into  Egypt  in  immediate  con- 
nection with  the  departure  of  the  Magi  (ii.  13),  is  plain. ^  No 
interval  could  have  elapsed  after  their  departure,  for  it  is  said, 


1  Maldonatus. 

2  Epiphanius,  and  now  Jarvis,  and  Patritius. 

3  Robinson,  Tischendorf,  Wleseler,  Lichtenstein,  Pressense. 
*  So  Hug. 

6  Alford.  Ellicott  says:  "Probably  on  the  same  night  that  the  Magi  arrived." 
From  the  fact  that  they  "  were  warned  of  God  in  a  dream,"  it  may,  however,  be  inferred 
that  the  dream  of  Joseph  was  the  night  following. 


Part  I.]  COMING   OF  THE   MAGI.  93 

verse  14,  that  he  "took  the  young  child  and  His  mother  by  night, 
and  departed  into  Egypt."  He  went  so  soon  as  the  angel 
appeared  to  him,  apparently  the  same  night.  We  cannot  then 
place  the  history  of  the  purification  after  their  departure,  and 
before  the  flight  into  Egypt,  as  is  done  by  Calvin  and  many. 
Nor  could  Herod,  after  his  jealousy  had  been  aroused  by  the 
inquiries  of  the  Magi  after  the  new-born  King  of  the  Jews,  have 
waited  quietly  several  weeks,  till  the  events  of  the  purification 
awakened  his  attention  anew.  He,  doubtless,  acted  here  with 
that  decision  that  characterized  all  his  movements,  and  seeing 
himself  mocked  by  the  wise  men,  took  instant  measures  for  the 
destruction  of  the  child. 

The  fact  that  Mary  offered  the  offering  of  the  poor  (Luke  ii. 
24),  may  be  mentioned  as  incidentally  confirming  this  view;  for 
if  she  had  received  previously  the  gifts  of  the  Magi,  particularly 
the  gold,  we  may  suppose  that  she  would  have  used  it  to  provide 
a  better  offering. 

We  thus  trace  a  threefold  adoration  of  Christ:  1st,  that  of 
the  shepherds;  2d,  that  of  Simeon  and  Anna;  3d,  that  of  the 
Magi;,,  or  a  twofold  adoration  of  the  Jews,  and  then  the  adora- 
tion of  the  heathen. 

February,  750.     4  B.  C. 

Soon  after  the  presentation,  came  the  wise  men  from  the  Matt.  ii.  1-12. 
East  to  worship  the  new-born  King  of  the  Jews.  This  visit 
excited  the  suspicions  of  Herod,  who  made  diligent  inquiries 
of  them,  but  being  warned  of  God  in  a  dream  that  they 
should  not  return  to  him,  they  departed  to  their  own  country 
another  way. 

The  time  of  the  appearing  of  the  star  which  led  the  Magi  to 
seek  Jesus  has  been  already  considered;  and  in  the  preceding 
remarks  the  reasons  have  been  given  why  their  coming  should  be 
placed  after  the  purification  of  the  fortieth  day.  It  is  not  said 
whence  the  Magi  came,  except  and  dvaroXutv,  "  from  the  east." 
Some  questions  respecting  their  country,  the  nature  of  Magism, 
and  its  relation  to  astrology,  will  be  briefly  considered. 

A  distinction  has  been  taken  between  the  singular,  avarok-f),  and  the 
plural,  avaToKal;  the  former  meaning  "the  east,"  the  quarter  of  the 
sun's  rising,  the  latter,  "the  eastern  regions."     (See  T.  G.  Lex,  sub 


94  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  1 

voce.)  Upham  says  {The  Wise  Men,  New  York,  1871)  that  by  the 
singular  term  is  meant  "the  East,"  by  the  plural,  '"the  far  East." 
As  Assyria  was  to  the  Jews  "the  North,"  so  Babylonia  was  "  the  East," 
and  Persia  beyond  Babylonia  "the  far  East."  The  ^lagi  coming  from 
the  east,  anb  amToXQv,  Vul.  ab  m-iodilnts,  he  thinks  to  have  been 
Persians.  This  was  an  early  and  current  opinion.  But  a  more  ancient 
and  general  belief  was  that  they  came  from  Arabia,  and  this  on  several 
grounds:  it  was  near  to  Judsea,  and  its  inhabitants  were  known  to 
be,  at  least  in  part,  descended  from  Abraham ;  the  gifts  brought  by 
them  were  native  to  that  country;  the  Psalmist  (Ixxii.  10)  also  had 
predicted  that  the  kings  of  Sebaand  Sheba  should  offer  gifts.'  Some 
have  thought  of  Babylonia  as  the  country  of  the  Magi,  of  the 
northern  parts  of  Mesopotamia,  and  of  Parthia.  The  suggestion 
that  they  were  Jews  had  no  probability;  their  question,  "Where 
is  the  king  of  the  Jews? "  would  be  put  only  by  one  not  a  Jew. 

The  question  from  whence  they  came,  is  not  answered  by  their 
name,  Magi,  since  Magism  seems  to  have  been  widely  spread.  It  is 
in  dispute  where  was  the  home  of  the  Magian  religion.  Herodotus 
(i.  40)  speaks  of  the  Magi  as  a  Median  tribe;  but  they  existed  as  a 
priestly  order  long  before.  It  is  said  by  Rawlinsou*  that  this  form  of 
religion  was  developed,  under  circumstances  unknown  to  us,  among 
the  earlier  inhabitants  of  Cappadocia,  Armenia,  and  the  Zagros 
mountain  range,  and  was  essentially  worship  of  the  elements. 
When  the  followers  of  Zoroaster,  sj^reading  southwestward  from 
their  original  seat  in  Central  Asia,  came  into  contact  with  Magism, 
there  was  a  partial  fusion  of  religious  beliefs  and  rites.  This  seems 
first  to  have  taken  place  in  Media,  and  the  Magi  became  the  priest- 
class  of  the  Median  nation,  and  were  later  accepted  as  such  by  the 
Persians.  To  the  same  effect  are  the  statements  of  Rogazin.  {The 
Strny  of  Media,  Bahylonia,  and  Persia,  New  York,  1888.)  The  Magi 
were  originally  the  native  priesthood  of  that  mountain  region  sub- 
sequently occupied  by  the  Medes,  and  known  as  Western  Eran. 
After  the  Aryans  came,  there  was  a  fusion  of  the  two  religions,  fol- 
lowed by  a  fusion  of  the  two  priesthoods ;  and  the  Magi  became  the 
national  priestly  class  of  Media.  They  appear  as  a  powerful  and  sepa- 
rate body,  possessing  large  territories,  with  cities  of  their  own. 
They  continued  to  be  the  sacerdotal  order  in  Persia  to  its  fall,  and  also 
under  the  Parthian  rule;  and,  it  is  said,  continue  to  be  the  priestly 
class  even  to  this  day. 

By  some,  however.  Babylonia  is  regarded  as  the  home  of  Magism, 
because  of  its  essential  likeness  to  Babylonian  Chaldaism.     It  is  said 


iPatritins,  B.,  Ill,  315;  Mill,  308,  note. 

8  The  Religions  of  tlie  Ancient  World,  New  York,  1883,  p.  97, 


Part  I]  COMING   OF   THE   MAGI.  95 

by  RawliasoQ '  that  a  distinction  was  taken  between  the  terms,  Baby- 
lonian and  Chaldean ;  the  former  being  the  ethnic  appellation  of  the 
inhabitants  at  large,  the  latter  of  a  small  but  learned  section.  (See 
in  Daniel  ii.  2.  Some  find  five  classes  of  Babylonian  Magi  mentioned 
by  this  projihet.)  From  Babylonia  Ghaldaism  spread  to  the  Assyrians, 
and  thence  to  the  Medians,  and  later  to  the  Persians.  The  question 
is  not  important  for  us.'' 

If  Chaldaism  and  Magism  were  in  substance- the  same,  this  readily 
accounts  for  its  wide  dift'usion. 

The  name  of  Magi  was  at  first  one  of  honor,  but  lost  in  later  times 
its  better  meaning,  and  became  among  tlie  Greeks  and  Romans  the 
general  designation  of  all  who  made  pretensions  to  supernatural 
knowledge  —  the  interpreters  of  dreams,  and  of  astronomical  pheno- 
mena, false  projohets,  sorcerers,  conjurers,  and  of  all  dealers  in  the 
black  arts.  This  process  of  deterioration  can  readily  be  understood. 
(In  this  lower  sense  it  is  used  in  the  Acts  xiii.  6,  8.  Elymas  —  the 
magus,  6  fidyoi,^^  the  sorcerer."  The  Vulgate  retains  magus.)  Some 
of  the  fathers,  and  later  Lightfoot,  say  that  the  term  is  used  here, 
as  elsewhere,  by  Matthew  in  its  bad  sense.  (Trench,  Star,  8.) 
But  there  is  general  agreement  that  the  term  in  Matthew,  if  trans- 
lated at  all,  is  well  translated  by  "wise  men."  Doubtless,  they 
were  astrologers;  but  astrology  is  not  without  some  elements  of 
truth,  for  amongst  other  purposes  served  by  "the  lights  in  the 
firmament"  is  that  of  "signs."     (Genesis  i.  14.) 

Their  knowledge  of  astrology  was  the  means  used  by  God  to 
teach  them  of  the  birth  of  his  Son.  The  star  was  to  them  what 
Augustin  calls  it,  magnifica  lingua  coeli,  speaking  to  them  by  its  ap- 
pearance of  a  new  divine  act  in  which  all  the  world.  Gentiles,  no 
less  than  Jews,  had  the  deepest  interest.^ 

That  the  star  seen  by  the  Magi  w^as  recognized  by  them  as  the  star 
of  the  king  of  the  Jews  —  "  His  star"  —  shows  that  they  must  have 
had  some  previous  knowledge  of  Him.  This  knowledge  they  may 
have  obtained  from  traditions  of  the  early  prophecy  of  Balaam  (Num. 
xxiv.  17)  of  "a  star  out  of  Jacob,"  pointing  to  a  king  hereafter  to 
arise;  or  from  the  prophecies  of  Daniel;  or  from  the  known 
Messianic  expectations  of  the  Jews  in  their  captivity;  or  from  personal 
intercourse  with  the  Jews  then  dwelling  in  the  East,  of  whom  there 
were  many  and  widely  scattered ;  or,  finally,  from  immediate  divine 
revelation.     Of  the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  from  the  peculiar  relation  in 


» Egypt  and  Babylon,  N.  York,  188.'),  p.  4S. 

*Jer.  xxxix.3-13;  Riehm,  sub  roce:  Herzog,  2!iuf.  s.  v. 

8  For  a  full  discussion  of  the  significance  of  steUar  signs,  see  Sepp,  i.  147,  etc. 


96  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  I. 

■which  he  stood  to  the  wise  men  of  Babylon,  and  from  his  long  resi- 
dence there,  extending  over  the  reign  of  four  kings,  and  his  promi- 
nent official  position,  they  could  scarcely  have  been  ignorant. 

That  a  general  expectation  pervaded  the  East  at  this  time  that  a 
king  would  arise  in  Judaea  to  rule  the  world,  seems  well  authenticated." 
It  is,  however,  asserted  by  Giescler  that  the  Roman  historians  copied 
Josephus;  and  Edersheim  (i.  203)  says:  "There  is  no  historical  evi- 
dence that  there  was  among  the  nations  any  wide-spread  expect- 
ancy of  the  Messiah  in  Palestine."  But  if  such  an  expectation  existed, 
all  agree  that  it  must  originally  have  been  derived  from  the  Jews. 
Aside,  then,  from  any  immediate  supernatural  revelation,  we  may  in- 
fer that  the  Magi  were  in  a  position  to  interpret  the  appearing  of  the 
star  as  connected  with  the  fulfilment  of  Jewish  prophecy  respecting 
the  Messiah,  and  thus  to  speak  of  it  as  "  His  star."  If  the  statement 
often  made  that  the  Gentile  astrologers  divided  the  zodiac  into  parts, 
each  of  which  denoted  a  particular  country,  and  that  the  sign  Pisces 
denoted  Judaea,  the  conjunction  of  planets  in  this  sign  would  at  once 
have  marked  out  this  country  as  the  place  of  present  interest.  But 
we  have  seen  no  satisfactory  joroof  that  at  the  time  of  the  Lord's 
birth  Judaea  was  astrologically  designated  by  this  sign.  The  state- 
ment of  Abarbanel  (1597  A.  D.)  as  to  a  much  later  belief  is  hardly 
sufficient,  but  it  is  accepted  by  many.* 

Some  minor  points  remain  yet  to  be  noticed.  Did  this  star,  seen 
by  the  Magi  "in  the  east,"  or,  as  rendered  by  many,  "at  its  rising" 
(so  Meyer,  in  loco),  go  before  them  on  their  way  to  Jerusalem  to  serve 
as  a  guide?  If  so,  was  it  visible  by  day,  or  did  they  travel  only  by 
night  ?  Was  it  visible  to  all,  or  to  them  only  ?  Some  understand 
"the  time  of  the  appearing  star"  —  rov  (paivo/xivov  da-r^po^  —  to  show 
a  constant  appearance  (Wieseler,  Beitrage,  149).  But  clearly  Herod 
asked  the  time  of  its  first  appearing. 

It  is  generally  assumed  that  the  star  was  seen  by  tlie  Magi 
all  the  way  till  they  reached  Jerusalem,  and  then  disappeared  for 
a  time,  and  again  reappeared  to  guide  them  to  Bethlehem.  This 
is  not  said  in  the  narrative.  Its  first  appearing  was  to  tell  them 
of  the  Messiah's  birth;  His  relations  to  the  Jews,  we  may  believe, 
they  already  knew;  the  way  to  Judaea  was  so  well  known  to 
them,  that  they  needed  not  a  celestial  guide.     (See  Speaker's 


1  Suetonius  Ves.,  c.  4,  vetus  et  constans  opinio;  Tacitus,  Hist .,  v.  l:!;  Joist'plms.War.  vi. 
5,4. 

*So  Sepp,  i.  158;  Wieseler,  Beitrage,  154.  Abarbanel  says  that  Jesus  was  bom  under 
Hare,  and  therefore  His  blood  was  upon  His  own  head. 


Part  I.]  COMING  OF  THE  MAGI.  97 

Com.)     It  was  its  reappearance  at  Jerusalem  after  so  long  a  dis- 
appearance, that  filled  them  with  gi-eat  joy. 

It  is  often  said  that  the  Magi  addressed  their  enquiry,  "■  Where 
is  He  that  is  born  King  of  the  Jews?  "  to  Herod,  as  the  official 
head  of  the  nation.  (So  Edersheim.)  This  may  be  so,  but  it  is 
not  said  by  the  Evangelist;  but  if  they  did  not,  their  arrival  and 
its  purpose  would  soon  have  cume  to  his  knowledge. 

Was  the  gathering  of  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  of  the 
people  (verse  4),  a  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin?  This  is  often 
said  on  the  ground  of  Matthew's  words,  that  Herod  -'gath- 
ered all  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  of  the  people."  But  it  is 
denied  by  others  on  the  ground  that  "the  elders"  are  not  men- 
tioned, who  were  a  constituent  part  of  the  Sanhedrin.  Meyer 
says  that  he  gathered  "  all  the  theologians  because  it  was  a  theo- 
logical question."  The  language  of  Matthew  does  not  affirm  an 
official  meeting,  but  only  that  Herod  gathered  all  those  of  whom 
he  might  best  obtain  an  answer  to  his  question  ;  and  these,  doubt- 
less, were  those  most  famed  for  their  knowledge  of  the  Script- 
ures, and  probably,  most  or  all  of  them  were  members  of  the 
Sanhedrin.  Edersheim  says:  "all  the  high  priests,  past  and 
pi'esent,  and  all  the  learned  Rabbis." 

Where  did  the  Magi  find  the  infant  King  ?  It  has  been 
taken  for  granted  that  they  found  Him  at  Bethlehem,  and  this 
has  always  been  the  traditional  belief.  But  it  has  been  ques- 
tioned by  some,  cited  by  Patritius,  who  present  the  view  that 
Joseph  and  Mary  went  immediately  after  the  presentation  to 
their  former  home  in  Nazareth;  and  that  the  Magi  found  them 
there.  This  seems  in  accordance  with  Luke's  statement  (ii.  39): 
"  When  they  had  performed  all  things  according  to  the  law  of 
the  Lord,  they  returned  into  Galilee  to  their  own  city  Nazareth." 
And  there  is  in  this  nothing  intrinsically  improbable.  The 
question  of  the  Magi  was,  "  Where  is  He  ?"  and  although  they 
were  sent  by  Herod  to  Betlilehem  as  the  prophetic  birthplace  of 
the  Messiah,  the  star  may  have  directed  them  to  Nazareth,  and 
here  they  may  have  paid  Him  their  adoration.  His  parents  being 
in  their  own  house.  If  so,  it  was  from  Nazareth  that  Joseph 
and  Mary  went  down  to  Egypt;  and  the  Magi  did  not  return  to 
Jerusalem,  but  went  to  their  own  country  another  way,  perhaps 
by  way  of  Damascus. 


98  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  I. 

But  the  question  naturally  arises,  Why  should  Herod  slay  the 
children  in  Bethlehem,  if  the  Magi  did  not  go  there  ?  Why  not 
follow  them  to  Nazareth,  and  there  slay  the  Child  they  wor- 
shipped ?  A  strong,  perhaps  decisive,  objection  to  this  view  is, 
that  no  tradition  of  the  visit  of  the  Magi  to  Nazareth  has  been 
preserved;  tradition  is  constant  that  they  went  to  Bethlehem. 

Many  traditions  have  been  current  in  the  Church  respecting 
these  Magi.'  They  were  said  to  be  three  in  number,  either 
from  their  gifts,  or  because  regarded  as  representatives  of  the 
three  divisions  —  Hamites,  Shemites,  and  Japhetites.  They 
were  kings,  one  of  Arabia,  one  of  Godolia  or  Saba,  and  one  of 
Tharsis  ;  their  names,  Melchior.  Balthasar,  Caspar;  they  were 
baptized  by  St.  Thomas,  their  bones  were  gathered  by  St. 
Helena,  and  buried  at  St.  Sophia  in  Constantinople,  and  were 
finally  removed  to  Cologne,  where  they  now  lie.^  The  belief 
that  they  were  kings  might  easily  arise  from  the  fact  already 
spoken  of  that  they,  as  a  class,  had  large  territorial  possessions. 
Mill  (310)  speaks  of  them  "as  not  improbably  toparchs  or  pro- 
vincial governors,  as  well  as  priests."  They  are  often  called 
priest-kings. 

If  the  Magi  came  from  beyond  the  Euphrates,  they  probably 
came  by  way  of  Damascus,  and  thence  to  Jerusalem.  In  return- 
ing, they  may  have  gone  south  of  the  Dead  Sea  to  Petraea,  and 
thence  have  crossed  the  Euphrates. 

February  —  May,  750.     4  B.  C. 

Immediately  after  their  departure,  Joseph,  warned  by  God  Matt.  ii.  13-15. 
in  a  dream,  takes  Jesus  and  Mary  and  goes  down  into  Egypt. 
Herod,  as  soon  as  he  finds  himself  mocked  by  the  wise  men.  Matt.  ii.  16-18. 
gives  orders  that  all  the  children  in  Bethlehem  of  two  years 
and  under  be  slain.     Joseph,  with  Jesus  and  Mary,  remains  in  Matt.  ii.  19-23. 
Egypt  till  he  hears,  through  an  angelic  messenger,  of  Herod's 
death.     He  designs  to  return  to  Jud?ea,  but  is  directed  by  God    Luke  ii.  39-40. 
to  go  to  Nazareth,  where  the  Lord  remains  during  His  child- 
hood and  youth. 

The  time  of  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  was  not  probably  of  long 
duration,  although  extended  by  some  of  the  early  writers   to 


1  Hofmann,  120. 

2  Hildesheim,  die  Legende  von  den  heiligen  drei  KSnigen;  Hertzog  Encyc,  ii.  503. 
For  a  full  discussion  of  all  these  traditions,  see  Spauheiin,  Dubia  Evaugelica,  ii.  271, 
and  Patritius,  iii.  318. 


Part  I.]  JESUS  IN  EGYPT.  99 

several  years.  In  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  it  is  stated  at  tlirce 
years  ;  in  the  History  of  Joseph,  at  one  year;  in  Tatian's  Har- 
mony, at  seven  years;  by  Epiphanius,  at  two  years.  Athanasius 
makes  Jesus  four  years  old  when  He  came  from  Egypt;  Baro- 
nius,  eight  years.  In  modern'  times,  those  who  put  the  Lord's 
birth  one  or  more  years  before  Herod's  death,  prolong  corre- 
spondingly the  sojourn  in  Egypt,  some  one,  some  two,  some 
three  years."  But  if  His  birth  be  placed  late  in  749,  some  months 
before  Herod's  death  in  April,  750,  as  we  place  it,  His  return 
from  Egypt  must  have  been  in  the  early  summer  of  750.  Lard- 
ner  (i.  358),  after  Kepler,  has  attempted  to  show  from  the 
expression  of  the  angel  (Matt.  ii.  120),  "  they  are  dead  that  sought 
the  young  child's  life,"  that  Antipater,  Herod's  son,  was  included 
with  Herod ;  and  as  he  had  been  at  enmity  with  his  father  for 
nearly  a  year,  that  the  attempt  upon  His  life  and  the  murder  of 
the  Innocents  must  have  been  before  this  enmity,  and  at  least 
a  year  before  Herod's  death.  But  this  is  doing  violence  to  the 
expression.'^ 

Joseph  was  to  remain  in  Egypt  tiU  God  should  send  him 
word,  and  this  word  was  sent  apparently  so  soon  as  Herod  died. 
Considering  how  numerous  were  the  Jews  in  Egypt,  and  the 
constant  communication  between  the  two  countries,  the  news  of 
Herod's  death  must  soon  have  reached  him  in  the  ordinary  way; 
but  it  was  first  made  known  to  him  by  the  angel,  and  no  long 
interval,  therefore,  could  have  elapsed.  That  he  made  no  delay 
but  hastened  his  return,  is  implied  in  the  fact  that  he  did  not 
know  that  Archelaus  was  Herod's  successor  till  he  came  to  the 
land  of  Israel.  We  infer,  then,  that  the  return  was  in  the  sum- 
mer of  750,  after  a  sojourn  of  three  or  four  months.^ 

Tradition  marks  out  the  route  which  Joseph  took  into  Egypt 
to  have  been  by  way  of  Hebron,  Gaza,  and  the  desert ;  which, 
as  the  most  direct  way,  is  very  likely  tlie  true  one.     At  Hebron 


1  Patritius,  Sepp,  Jarvis,  Geikie. 

2  See  Trench,  Star,  107;  Meyer  in  Icx^. 

3  According  to  Greswell,  seven  months;  Lichtenstein,  four  to  five  weeks;  Wiese- 
ler,  and  ElHcott,  two  to  three  weeks.  Patritius,  iii.  403,  argues  that  the  return  was 
during  the  little  interval  when  Archelaus  ruled  as  king,  or  from  the  death  of  his  father  to 
his  departure  to  Home,  whither  he  went  to  obtain  the  conflrmation  of  Herod's  will.  This 
would  make  it  to  have  been  early  in  April,  750.  It  may,  however,  be  doubted  whether 
the  expression  of  Matthew,  ii.  82,  that  "  Archelaus  did  reign,"  i^j  not  pressed  too  far. 


100  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  I. 

is  still  pointed  out  upon  a  hill  the  spot  where  the  family  rested  at 
night,  and  a  similar  one  at  Gaza.  Probably  near  a  fortnight  was 
occupied  in  the  journey.  The  traditional  place  of  their  sojourn 
in  Egypt  is  the  village  Metariyeh,  not  far  from  the  city  of  Heli- 
opolis  on  the  way  toward  Cairo.  An  old  sycamore  is  still  shown 
as  that  under  which  they  rested  in  their  journey,  or,  according 
to  present  Coptic  traditions,  the  successor  of  that,  and  near  by 
is  a  fountain  in  which  the  child  was  bathed.'  It  is  probable 
that  many  Jews  dwelt  at  this  time  in  the  neighborhood  of  Heli- 
opolis,  which  may  explain  the  choice  of  a  village  in  its  vicinity  as 
their  place  of  refuge.  Another  tradition,  however,  makes  them 
to  have  left  Metariyeh,  and  to  have  dwelt  at  Memphis.  The 
temple  built  by  Onias  about  150  B.  C.  at  Leontopohs  still  con- 
tinued to  be  a  much-frequented  place  of  worship  to  the  Egyp- 
tian Jews,  of  whom  Lightfoot  says,  "  there  was  an  infinite  num- 
ber at  this  time." 

From  the  nearness  of  Bethlehem  to  Jerusalem,  Herod 
doubtless  learned  very  early  after  the  departure  of  the  Magi, 
that  they  had  deceived  him,  and  that  through  them  he  could 
not  discover  the  new-born  child.  But  as  he  had  already  dili- 
gently inquired  of  them  what  time  the  star  appeared,  he  thought 
to  accomplish  his  purpose  by  ordering  that  all  the  male  children 
from  two  years  old  and  under,  in  Bethlehem  and  its  environs, 
should  be  put  to  death.  The  truth  of  the  narrative  has  been 
often  questioned,  and  on  various  gi'ounds.  The  only  important 
objection,  however,  is  that  springing  from  the  silence  of  Jose- 
phus,  who,  it  is  said,  must  have  mentioned  an  event  so  peculiar 
and  cruel. ^  The  common  answer  to  this,  that  among  the  many 
insane  and  fiendish  acts  of  cruelty  that  marked  the  last  days  of 
Herod,  this  might  be  easily  overlooked,  is  amply  sufficient.^ 
The  expression,  "from  two  years  old  and  under,"  is  ambiguous. 
According  to  Campbell,  "  only  those  beginning  the  second  year 
are  included."  Greswell  also  limits  it  to  the  age  of  thirteen 
months.  If  it  be  thus  confined,  the  number  of  the  children 
murdered  is  much  diminished.  But  under  any  circumstances, 
it  could  not  have  been  large.     Sepp,  supposing  the  whole  num- 


•  Chester,  Qt.  St.,  July  1880.    Kitto,  Life  of  Christ,  1.30. 

*  Meyer,  in  loco.  a  Winer,  i.  483. 


Part  I.]  MURDER   OF  THE   INNOCENTS.  101 

ber  of  inhabitants  of  Bethlehem  and  its  coasts  to  be  5,000,  would 
make  the  male  children  of  this  age  about  ninety;  but  this  is  a 
large  estimate.  Townsend,  making  the  inhabitants  to  be  2,000, 
makes  50  children  to  have  been  slain.  Some  would  reduce  the 
number  to  ten  or  fifteen.'  Voltaire,  after  an  old  Greek  tradi- 
tion, would  make  it  14,000.  In  peaceful  times,  such  an  act  as 
this,  even  if  executed,  as  this  probably  was,  in  secrecy,  would 
have  excited  general  indignation  when  it  became  known;  but 
now  the  Jewish  people  had  so  long  "supped  with  horrors,"  and 
were  so  engrossed  in  the  many  perils  that  threatened  their 
national  existence,  that  this  passed  by  comparatively  unnoticed. 
Such  a  deed  —  from  a  man,  of  whom  Josephus  says  that  "he 
was  brutish  and  a  stranger  to  all  humanity,"  who  had  murdered 
his  wife  and  his  own  children,  and  who  WM'shed,  in  his  dying 
rage,  to  destroy  all  the  chief  men  of  his  kingdom,  that  there 
might  be  a  general  mourning  at  his  funeral  —  could  have  awak- 
ened no  surprise.  It  was  wholly  in  keeping  with  his  reckless 
and  savage  character,  but  one,  and  by  no  means  the  greatest, 
of  his  crimes.  It  is  therefore  possible  that  it  may  never  have 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Jewish  historian,  writing  so 
many  years  after  the  event. 

If,  however,  Josephus  was  aware  of  this  atrocity,  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  he  would  have  mentioned  it.  With  the  rea- 
sons for  his  silence  we  are  not  particularly  concerned.  It  may 
be,  as  some  say,^  that  he  purposely  avoided  everything  that 
drew  attention  to  the  Messianic  hopes  of  his  people;  or,  as 
others,^  that  "  he  could  not  mention  it  without  giving  the 
Christian  cause  a  great  advantage."  But  whatever  his  motives, 
his  silence  cannot  invalidate  the  statement  of  Matthew,  except 
with  those  who  will  not  credit  an  Evangelist  unless  corrobo- 
rated by  some  Jewish  or  heathen  author. 

There  are  some"  who  think  that  the  sedition  of  Judas  and 
Matthias  ^  occurred  at  this  very  time,  and  was  connected  with 
the  visit  of  the  Magi.  The  inquiries  of  these  strangers  for  the 
King  of  the  Jews  aroused  into  immediate  activity  the  fiery 
Zealots,  and  a  report  of  the  king's  death  finding  credence,  they 


*  Winer,  i.  48.3;  Morrison;  Farrar,  Edersheira,  say  twenty  at  most. 

-  Lichtenstein,  97.  ^  Lardner,  i.  351. 

<  Larduer,  i.  348:  Miiuter.  ^  Josephus,  Antiq.,  svi.  6.  3  and  4. 


103  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  I. 

attacked  at  noon-day  the  golden  eagle  he  had  placed  over  the 
temple  gate.  About  forty  of  them  being  arrested,  were  burned 
with  fire.  Exasperated  at  this  bold  sedition,  and  aware  of  the 
cause,  the  king  gave  orders  for  the  slaughter  of  the  children  at 
Bethlehem.  Of  the  two  acts  of  this  tragedy,  Matthew  relates 
only  that  with  which  he  was  concerned,  that  which  took  place 
at  Bethlehem;  and  Josephus,  that  which  concerned  the  general 
history  of  affairs.  The  silence  of  the  one  is  no  disproof  of  the 
other. 

The  objection  of  Hase  and  Meyer,  that  this  murder  of  the 
children  was  both  superfluous  and  unwise,  may  be  very  true, 
but  does  not  affect  the  historic  truth  of  the  event.  The  silence 
of  heathen  historians  respecting  it  is  wholly  unimportant.  Judasa 
did  not  hold  so  high  a  place  in  their  estimation  that  they  should 
trouble  themselves  about  its  internal  history,  so  little  intelligible 
to  a  stranger.  Herod's  name  is  occasionally  mentioned  by  them 
in  connection  with  Roman  matters,  and  there  is  in  one  a  brief 
allusion  to  the  trial  and  death  of  his  sons,  but  nothing  more. 
The  well-known  jest  of  Augustus,  preserved  by  Macrobius,^ 
might  be  cited  if  it  could  be  shown  that  he  had  borrowed  noth- 
ing from  Christian  sources.  He  says:  "When  Augustus  had 
heard  that  among  the  children  under  two  years  old,  intra  lima- 
turn,  which  Herod  had  commanded  to  be  slain  in  Syria,  his  own 
son  had  been  killed,  he  said  'it  is  better  to  be  Herod's  swine  than 
his  son.'"  The  expression,  "two  years  old,"  points  too  directly 
to  Matthew  to  allow  us  to  suppose  that  it  had  an  independent 
origin,  although  the  words  of  Augustus  may  be  literally  given. 
Most  agree  that  it  is  of  no  historical  value.  ^ 

It  would  be  strange,  indeed,  that  while  oriental  history  is 
full  of  such  deeds  of  cruelty  which  are  believed  upon  the 
authority  of  a  single  writer,  the  statement  of  the  Evangelist 
should  be  disbelieved,  though  confirmed  by  all  that  we  know  of 
the  character  of  the  chief  actor,  and  of  the  history  of  the  times. 
A  like  rule  applied  to  general  history  would  leave  not  a  few  of 
its  pages  empty. 

"When  directed  to  go  into  Egypt,  Joseph  was  not  told  to 


1  Sat.,  ii.2. 

*  So  Lardner,  Meyer,  Trench,  Alford.    See,  however,  Mill,  294;  Ellicott,  78,  note  2. 


I'art  I.]  RETURN  B^ROM  EGYPT.  103 

what  place  he  should  return  (Matt.  ii.  13),  nor  afterward,  when 
directed  to  return,  was  the  place  designated  (verse  20).  It  is 
plain,  however,  that  he  did  not  design  to  return  to  Nazareth. 
He  evidently  regarded  Bethlehem,  the  city  of  David,  the  proper 
place  in  which  to  rear  the  son  of  David.  He  naturally  supposed 
that  He  who  was  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  should  dwell  in  the  land 
of  Judah, the  most  religious,  most  sacred  part  of  Palestine;  and, 
as  the  promised  Messiah,  should  be  brought  as  near  as  possible 
to  the  theocratic  centre,  where  He  might  have  frequent  inter- 
course with  the  priests  and  rabbins,  and  be  educated  under  the 
very  shadow  of  the  temple.  Only  through  a  special  command  of 
God,  was  he  led  to  return  with  Jesus  to  Galilee;  and  that  he 
made  his  abode  in  the  upland  city  of  Nazareth,  can  only  be  ex- 
plained by  the  fact,  of  which  Matthew  is  wholly  silent,  that  this 
had  been  his  earlier  residence  as  related  by  Luke. 

How  diverse  the  opinions  of  harmonists  have  been,  in  regard 
to  the  order  of  events  of  the  Lord's  infancy,  will  appear  by  a 
comparison  of  their  several  arrangements.  These  may  be  thus 
classified:  I.  That  put  the  coming  of  the  Magi  before  the  forti- 
eth day,  the  legal  time  of  the  Purification. 

Sej-tj).  Coming  of  the  Magi  on  thirteenth  day.  Purification 
on  fortieth  day.  Flight  into  Egypt,  and  sojourn  there  two  years. 
Return  to  Galilee. 

Chem7iitz.  Coming  of  the  Magi  just  before  the  Purification. 
Purification  on  fortieth  day.  Flight  into  Egypt,  and  sojourn 
there  four  years.     Return  into  Galilee. 

II.  That  put  the  coming  of  the  Magi  after  the  Purification. 
Here  we  distinguish  two  classes,  (a)  That  put  the  Purification 
at  the  legal  time  on  the  fortieth  day. 

Epiphanius.  Purification  on  fortieth  day.  Departure  to  Naz- 
areth, and  sojourn  there  two  years.  Return  to  Bethlehem.  Com- 
ing of  Magi.  Flight  into  Egypt,  and  sojourn  there  three  years. 
Return  to  Galilee. 

TAghtfoot.  Purification  on  fortieth  day.  Return  to  Bethlehem, 
and  sojourn  there  till  two  years  of  age.  Coming  of  Magi.  Flight 
into  Egypt,  and  sojourn  there  three  or  four  months.  Return  to 
Galilee. 

Wieseler.     Purification  on  fortieth   day.     Coming  of  Magi, 


104  THE   LIFE    OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  1 

Flight   into   Egypt,    and   sojourn   there   two   or    three   weeks 
Return  to  Galilee. 

(b)  That  put  the  Purification  after  the  legal  time,  and  after 
the  return  from  Egypt. 

Friedlieh.  Coming  of  Magi  on  the  thirteenth.  Flight  into 
Egypt,  and  sojourn  there  three  or  four  months.  Return  to  Judaea. 
Purification.     Departure  to  Nazareth. 

Caspari.  Coming  of  Magi.  Flight  into  Egypt,  and  sojourn 
there  three  or  four  weeks.  Return  to  Bethlehem.  Purification. 
Departure  to  Nazareth. 

That  the  coming  of  the  Magi  was  placed  on  the  6th  of  Janu- 
ary, the  thirteenth  from  His  birth,  the  same  day  that  was  cele- 
brated as  that  of  His  baptism,  has  been  already  spoken  of  in 
speaking  of  the  feast  of  the  Epiphany. 

That  the  Magi  did  not  come  till  after  the  Purification,  rests 
on  several  grounds:  1st,  that  Mary  gave  the  offering  of  the 
poor,  a  thing  not  likely  after  she  had  received  the  gifts  of  the 
Magi;  2d,  that  Herod  would  not  wait  after  their  departure  some 
weeks  before  slaying  the  children  at  Bethlehem  ;  3d,  that 
Matthew  and  Luke  are  to  be  reconciled.  That  the  Purifica- 
tion was  not  delayed  appears  from  Luke  ii.  22.  On  these  and 
other  grounds,  almost  all  harmonists  put  the  coming  of  the  Magi 
after  the  Purification.  Those  who  put  the  birth  of  the  Lord  in 
747  or  748,  and  the  death  of  Herod  in  750,  must  make  the 
sojourn  in  Egypt  proportionately  long. 

Residence  in  Nazareth.  —  In  the  city  of  Nazareth  the  Lord 
spent  the  larger  part  of  his  earthly  life;  it  is  called  ''His  own 
wuntry,''  narpi;  (Matt.  xiii.  54,  and  elsewhere),  and  He  is  con- 
itantly  called  Jesus  of  Nazai-eth;  itthei-efore  deserves  our  special 
notice  His  residence  here  being  brought  by  Matthew  into  direct- 
connection  with  the  Old  Testament  prophecy,  the  etymology  of  the 
name  has  been  much  discussed.'  By  many  it  is  derived  from 
netser,  the  Hebrew  for  sprout  or  twig,  either  because  of  so  many 
thickets  upon  the  adjoining  hills,  or  because  the  village  itself  was 
small  and  feeble  like  a  tender  twig.'  So  Jesus  is  called  (Isaiah 
zi.  1)  a  Branch.     Others  derive  it  from  notser,  that  which  guards 


iSee  Meyer,  in  locr  ^^yiner,  ii.  142;  Hengst.  Christologj-,  ii.  109;  T.  G.  Lex. 


Fart  I.]  NAZARETH.  105 

or  keeps;  hence,  Nazareth,  the  protecting  city.'  Others  stiU 
derive  it  from  nezer,  to  separate.^  Jerome  interpreted  it  as  mean- 
ing a  flower:  Ihimus  ad  Nazareth,  et  juxta  interpretationem  nominis 
ejus,  florem  videbimiis  Galikeae ;  referring,  as  would  appear  from 
his  language  elsewhere,  to  Jesus  as  the  Branch  or  Flower  from  the 
root  of  Jesse.  It  is  noticeable  that  travellers  speak  of  the  great 
quantity  of  flowers  now  seen  there. ^  The  present  name  in 
Arabic  is  En  Nasirah. 

Nazareth  lies  in  a  small  valley  of  Lower  Galilee,  a  little 
north  of  the  great  plain  of  Esdraelon,  from  which  it  is  reached 
by  very  rocky  and  precipitous  paths.  Its  elevation  above  the 
plain  is  estimated  to  be  from  300  to  350  feet.  Bonar  (398) 
speaks  of  the  main  road  "as  little  better  than  a  succession  of 
rocky  slopes  or  ledges,  rugged  with  holes  and  stones.  Yet  this 
was  the  old  road  to  Nazareth.  There  could  be  no  other  from 
this  side,  so  that  one  travelling  from  the  south  must  have  taken 
it."  The  valley  runs  northeast  and  southwest,  and  is  about  a 
mile  long  and  a  quarter  of  a  mile  broad.  Around  it  rise  many 
small  hills  of  no  great  height,  the  highest  being  on  the  west  or 
southwest.  They  are  of  limestone,  and  give  to  the  scenery  a 
grayish  tint,  and  are  covered  thickly  with  shrubs  and  trees. 
"  The  white  rocks  all  around  Nazareth  give  it  a  peculiar  aspect. 
It  appears  dry  and  tame,  and  this  effect  is  increased  by  the  trees 
being  powdered  over  with  dust  during  the  summer  season.  The 
heat  was  very  great,  and  the  gleam  from  the  rocks  painful  to  the 
eye."  *  "  The  upper  ridges  of  the  hills  were,  as  is  usual  in  this 
worn-out  land,  gray  and  bare,  but  the  lower  slopes  and  dells  and 
hollows  were  green,  sprinkled  not  scantily  with  the  olive,  the  fig, 
the  prickly  pear,  and  the  karub  ;  while  in  the  gardens  the  usual 
oriental  fruit  trees  showed  themselves."* 

The  village  itself  lies  on  the  western  side  of  the  valley  upon 
the  side  of  the  hill.     The  houses  are,  in  general,  of  stone,  and 

iSee  Riggenbach,  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1855;  Edersheim,  i.  145,  "  Watch  "  or  "  watchers  "  ; 
Merrill  (Galilee,  29),  "The  guarded  or  watched,"  and  connects  it  with  the  high  hill 
above  it  and  watching  over  it. 

^Lightfoot  and  Bengel,  in  loco. 

3  Stanley,  359.  The  subject  is  discussed  by  MOl,  335.  Keim  calls  it  Nazara.  So  in  the 
Greek  test.  Matt.  iv.  13,  Luke  iv.  16,  W.  and  H.,  against  Keim.    See  Riehin,  sub  voce. 

*  Mission  of  Inquiry,  306.  6  Bonar. 

5* 


106  THE   LIFE   OP  OUR   LORD.  [Part  1. 

more  substantially  built  than  most  of  the  towns  of  the  region, 
and  from  their  whiteness  it  has  been  called  "  the  white  city  "; '  the 
streets  or  lanes  are,  however,  narrow  and  filthy.  Porter 
(ii.  359)  speaks  of  it  as  "built  on  the  side  of  the  highest  hill; 
on  the  north  the  side  of  the  hill  is  steep,  and  where  it  joins 
the  plain  is  seamed  by  three  or  four  ravines  ;  and  on  the 
lower  declivities  of  the  ridges  between  them  stands  the 
village  of  Nazareth.  This,  therefore,  is  'the  hill  whereon  the 
city  was  built'  (Luke  iv.  29).  The  houses  in  some  places  seem 
to  cling  to  the  sides  of  the  precipices,  in  others  they  nestle  in 
glens,  and  in  others  again  they  stand  boldly  out  overlooking  the 
valley."  The  present  number  of  inhabitants  is  variously  esti- 
mated,^ and  is  said  to  be  increasing. 

Nazaretli  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  nor  by  Josephus, 
from  which  we  may  conchide  that  it  was  a  place  of  no  importance. 
Bnt  this  conclusion  would  not  be  just,  if  we  receive  the  state- 
ment of  Neubauer  (189),  resting  on  a  doubtful  rabbinical  authority, 
that  it  was  a  gathering  place  for  the  priests  who  went  up  from  that 
region  for  the  service  of  the  temple.  This  is  accepted  by  Edersheim 
Ci.  147) :  "  Nazareth  was  one  of  the  great  centers  of  Jewish  temple- 
life.  .  .  .  The  priests  of  the  course  which  was  to  be  on  duty 
always  gathered  in  certain  towns,  whence  they  went  up  in  company  to 
Jerusalem."  If  this  was  the  case,  the  frequent  presence  of  these 
priests,  and  the  interest  thereby  excited  in  the  temple  service,  must 
have  been  an  important  element  in  the  religious  character  of  the 
child  Jesus. 

The  general  belief  that  Nazareth  was  a  lonely,  out-of-the-way 
place,  having  very  little  connection  with  the  outer  world,  and  its 
citizens,  therefore,  uncivilized  and  rude,  is  also  strongly  combated 
by  Edersheim,  who  says  that  the  lower  caravan  route  from  Acre  to 
Damascus  —  the  via  maris  —  led  through  Nazareth,  and  therefore  "it 
was  not  a  stagnant  pool  of  rustic  seclusion.  Men  of  all  nations, 
busy  with  another  life  than  that  of  Israel,  would  appear  in  its  streets." 
Merrill  takes  the  same  view,  and  gives  the  distances  to  certain  other 


1  Although  not  named  in  the  Tcalmnd,  Schwartz  (178)  thinks  it  was  kno^vn  under 
another  name:  "I  have  ascertained  that  the  town  of  Nazareth  was  called  Laban  —  The 
WTiite  Town  —  from  the  color  of  the  soil,  and  stones,  and  houses."  This  is  accepted  by 
Hamburger,  ii.  8.54.    Baedeker  speaks  of  "  its  dazzling  white  walls,"  i.  e.,  of  the  houses. 

*The  Turkish  officials  assert  that  it  amounts  to  10,000,  while  others  fix  the  number  at 
5,000  to  G,000;  more  than  half  are  Christians.  Baed.,  .S.'iO.  The  population  in  our  Lord's  day 
is  variously  estimated  from  5,000  to  15,000;  Merrill,  more;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  valid 
data  for  an  estimate  so  large. 


Part  I.]  NAZARETH.  107 

cities,  thus  showing  that  its  inhabitants  had  that  stimuhis  which 
comes  from  easy  and  frequent  intercourse  with  other  and  larger 
communities. 

Although  so  intimately  connected  with  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  there- 
fore so  prominent  in  the  Gospels,  it  is  not  mentioned  by  any  Christian 
writer  prior  to  Eusebius  in  the  fourth  century,  nor  does  it  seem  to 
have  been  visited  by  pilgrims  till  the  sixth.'  After  this  time  it  be-  : 
came  one  of  the  most  famous  among  the  holy  places.  In  the  seventh 
century  two  churches  are  mentioned,  one  on  the  site  of  Joseph's 
house,  and  the  other  on  the  site  of  the  house  where  Gabriel  appeared 
to  Mary.*  During  the  Crusades  it  was  made  the  seat  of  a  bishopric. 
It  was  destroyed  about  A.  D.  1200  by  the  Saracens,  and  for  300  or 
400  years  seems  to  have  been  inhabited  chiefly  by  Mohammedans,  and 
very  little  visited  by  pilgrims.^  One  of  the  cliurches  was  rebuilt  in 
1620  by  the  Franciscans,  who  added  to  it  a  cloister.  Nazareth  has 
been  for  many  years  the  seat  of  a  Greek  titular  bishop. 

All  travellers  agree  in  praising  the  extent  and  beauty  of  the  pros- 
pect from  the  top  of  the  hill  northwest  of  Nazareth,  1,788  feet  above 
the  sea.  It  is  surmounted  by  the  tomb  of  a  Mohammedan  saint,  and 
is  about  400  or  500  feet  above  the  valley.''  To  the  north  is  seen  the 
wide  plain  of  el  Buttauf,  running  from  east  to  west,  having  Cana  of 
Galilee  upon  its  northern,  and  Sepphoris  upon  its  southern  border, 
and  beyond  it  rise  in  parallel  ridges  the  hills,  one  behind  another,  to 
the  heights  of  Safed.  To  the  northeast  Hermon  is  seen,  and  east- 
ward the  ranges  of  Bashan  beyond  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  while  Tabor 
lies  between  it  and  the  sea.  To  the  southeast  stretch  Little  Hermon 
and  Gilboa  in  parallel  lines.  On  the  south  lies  the  great  plain  of 
Esdraelon,  bounded  southward  by  the  hills  of  Samaria  and  the  long 
line  of  Carmel.  Over  the  broken  ridges  that  join  Carmel  to  Samaria, 
is  seen  the  Mediterranean  far  to  the  southwest,  and  the  eye  following 
the  summits  westward  reaches  the  high  promontory  where  Carmel 
ends  upon  the  shore ;  from  this  point  is  seen  the  unbroken  expanse  of 
water  many  miles  to  the  north.  This  view  is  said  by  Porter  (ii.  263) 
to' be  the  richest,  and  perhaps  also  the  most  extensive,  which  one  gets 
in  all  Palestine,  and  to  surpass  that  from  Tabor.  ^ 

That  Nazareth,  from  some  cause,  had,  at  the  time  when  the 
Lord  resided  in  it,  an  evil  name,  appears  plainly  from  John  i 


1  Robinson,  ii.  341.  SArculf,  Early  Travels,  9. 

3  Earlj'  Travels,  46  and  298. 

*So  Robinson,  ii.  .3.3.3,  note.    Schubert  makes  it  700  or  800  feet  above  Nazareth. 

6  See  Robinson,  ii.  336;  Stanley,  357. 


108  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  I, 

46."  The  objection  of  Natbanael  was  not  merely  that  it  was  in 
Galilee,  and  that  the  Messiah  could  not  come  out  of  Galilee 
(John  vii.  41),  but  he  refers  specially  to  Nazareth.  Nor  was  it 
that  it  was  a  little  village,  for  so  was  Bethlehem;  and  whenever 
designated  in  the  Gospels,  it  is  always  called  a  city.  The  obvious 
import  is,  that  Nazareth  was  in  ill-repute  throughout  the  province, 
and  of  this  Nathanael,  who  was  from  Cana,  but  a  little  way 
distant,  was  well  aware.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  revengeful 
and  cruel  treatment  of  the  Lord  when  he  first  preached  to  the 
inhabitants  (Luke  iv.  28,  29). 

April  8,  761.     A.  D.  8. 

From  Nazareth,  at  the  age  of  twelve,  the  Lord  goes  up  for  Luke  ii.  41-52. 
the  first  time  to  Jerusalem  to  keep  the  Passover.  After  the 
departure  of  His  parents  He  remained  behind  to  converse  with 
the  doctors,  and  was  found  in  the  temple  three  days  after 
by  them.  Returning  to  Nazareth,  He  dwelt  there  in  retire- 
ment till  the  time  came  that  He  should  enter  upon  His  public 
■work. 

Supposing  the  Lord  to  have  been  born  in  749,  the  year  when 
He  went  up  with  His  parents  to  the  Passover  was  761,  and  the 
feast  began  on  the  8th  of  April.  His  presence  at  the  Passover, 
at  the  age  of  twelve,  was  in  accordance  with  Jewish  custom. 
At  that  age,  the  Jewish  boys  began  to  be  instructed  in  the  law, 
to  be  subject  to  the  fasts,  and  to  attend  regularly  the  feasts,  and 
were  called  the  sons  of  the  Law.^  This,  however,  is  called  in 
question  by  Greswell  (i.  396),  who  asserts  that  boys  did  not 
become  subject  to  ordinances  till  they  had  reached  (he  age  of 
fourteen  years,  and  that  the  purpose  for  which  Jesus  was  now 
taken  up  was  not  to  celebrate  the  Passover,  but  to  be  '-made  a 
disciple  of  the  Law,  and  to  undergo  a  ceremony,  something  like 
to  our  confirmation."  He  sees  in  this  the  explanation  of  the 
Lord's  presence  in  the  midst  of  the  doctors.^  It  is  not  probable 
that  up  to  this  time  Jesus  had  accompanied  His  parents  to  Jeru- 
salem to  any  of  the  festivals.     Of  all  that  passed  between  Him 


1  See  Blitto,  Life  of  Christ,  27.  Merrill  "  denies  that  there  is  any  disparagement  in 
the  words.  So  also  Godet,  in  loco,  who  says;  "  There  is  nothing  in  history  lo  prove  that 
it  was  a  place  of  worse  fame  or  less  esteemed  than  any  other  village  of  Galilee." 

*  Meyer  in  loco;  Sepp,  ii.  172. 

«But  see  Edersheim,  Sketches  of  Jewish  life,  120. 


Part  I.]  JESUS   WITH   THE   DOCTORS.  109 

and  the  rabbis,  a  full  account  may  be  found  in  the  Apocryphal 
Gospel  of  the  Infancy.'  It  needs  no  proof  that  on  this  occasion 
He  was  not  taking  upon  Himself  the  part  of  a  teacher,  nor  ask- 
ing questions  for  disputation,  but  was  seeking  to  learn  the  truth 
from  those  who  were  appointed  of  God  to  be  the  teachers  of  tlie 
Law.  Where  He  was  sitting  with  the  doctors  is  uncertain. 
Lightfoot  (zVi  loco)  says:  "There  were  three  courts  of  judicature 
in  the  temple,  and  also  a  synagogue,""  but  does  not  say  where  He 
was  found.  "  There  is  nothing  absurd  in  it  if  we  should  suppose 
Christ  gotten  into  the  very  Sanhedrin  itself."  Edersheim 
denies  that  there  was  such  a  temple-synagogue,  and  affirms  that, 
during  the  feasts,  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  sat  on  the 
Chel  or  terrace,  to  hear  and  answer  questions,  and  that  there 
Jesus  found  them.  He  infers  that  this  was  during  the  feast, 
and  not  after  it  (ii.  App.  x.). 

The  three  days  that  elapsed  before  His  parents  found  Jesus, 
may  be  thus  computed:  the  first,  that  of  their  departure  from 
Jerusalem;  second,  the  day  of  their  return  ;  third,  the  day  when 
He  was  found;  or,  if  we  exclude  the  day  of  departure  —  first, 
the  day  of  their  return;  second,  the  day  of  search  in  Jerusalem; 
third,  the  day  when  He  was  found.  Some,  with  much  less 
probability,  count  three  days  from  the  day  of  their  return.  That 
He  might  very  easily  be  separated  from  them  without  any  cul- 
pable carelessness  on  their  part,  appears  from  the  great  multi- 
tudes that  were  present  and  the  confusion  that  would  necessa- 
rily prevail  at  such  a  time.  Tradition  makes  Beer  or  El  Bireh 
to  have  been  the  place  where  His  parents  spent  the  first  night, 
and  where  they  missed  their  son.  "  The  place  where  Christ 
was  first  missed  by  His  parents  is  commonly  shown  at  this  day 
to  travellers,  by  the  name  of  Beer,  but  ten  miles  from  the  city."^ 
Edersheim  says,  Sichem,  if  the  direct  road  north  through  Sama- 
ria was  taken.  As  is  well  known,  the  first  day's  journey  of  a 
company  of  eastern  travellers  is  always  short.  "  On  that  day  it 
is  not  customary  to  go  more  than  six  or  eight  miles,  and  the 
tents  are  pitched  for  the  first  night's  encampment  almost  within 
sight  of  the  place  from  which  the  journey  commences."^     That, 


'  See  Hofmann,  259.  __       2  Lightfoot. 

3Hackett,  Scrip.  111.,  12. 


110  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  I. 

leaving  Jerusalem  in  the  afternoon  with  tlie  crowd  of  Galilsean 
pilgrims,  Mary  and  Joseph  should  have  lost  sight  of  Jesus  for 
three  or  four  hours,  and  yet  not  have  felt  any  alarm,  supposing 
Him  to  have  been  somewhere  in  the  company,  presents  no 
difficulty.' 

The  Lord  now  disappears  from  our  sight  and  does  not  reap- 
pear for  many  years.  We  are  simply  told  He  went  with  His 
parents  to  Nazareth,  and  was  subject  unto  them. 

How  the  eighteen  years  of  His  life  passed  at  Nazareth 
were  spent,  we  have  no  means  of  determining.  The  Evangelists 
have  maintained  upon  this  point  entire  silence.  It  is  most  prob- 
able that  He  was  taught  His  father  Joseph's  trade,  according  to 
the  settled  custom  of  the  Jews  to  bring  up  their  sons  to  some 
trade  or  art.^  This  is  very  plainly  taught  in  the  question  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Nazareth,  "  Is  not  this  the  carpenter  ?  "  which,  as 
Alford  remarks,  "signifies  that  the  Lord  had  actually  tcorked  at 
the  trade  of  His  reputed  father."  Justin  Martyr  (100-150  A. 
D.)  says  that  Christ  being  regarded  as  a  worker  in  wood,  "  did 
make,  while  among  men,  ploughs  and  yokes,  thus  setting  before 
them  symbols  of  righteousness,  and  teaching  an  active  life."^ 
That  this  was  His  occupation  seems  to  have  been  generally 
believed  by  the  early  fathers.  Some,  in  later  times,  thinking 
bodily  labor  derogatory  to  him,  made  this  time  of  retirement  at 
Nazareth  to  have  been  spent  in  contemplation  and  prayer.  The 
traditions  that  He  made  a  journey  to  Persia  to  visit  the  Magi, 
or  to  Egypt  to  visit  her  sages,  need  no  notice.* 

Of  the  means  for  the  mental  and  spiritual  education  of  the 
child  Jesus,  we  have  only  a  genm'al  knowledge.  It  is  doubtless 
true,  as  said  by  Edersheim  (i.  23'0),  that  "from  the  first  days  of 
its  existence  a  religious  atmosphere  surrounded  the  child  of  Jew- 
ish parents."  Besides  the  influences  of  the  home  and  the  teach- 
ing of  the  father  and  mother,  there  were  the  synagogue,  the 
school,  and  the  feasts.  For  the  first  years  the  Bible  was  the 
text-book,  and  later  the  traditional  law.  It  is  a  point  in  ques- 
tion whether  Joseph  possessed  a  copy  of  the  old  Testament  in  whole 


1  As  to  the  more  distinguished  rabbis  whom  the  Lord  may  have  met  at  this  time 
«ee  Sepp,  ii.  178. 

2  See  Lightfoot  on  Mark  vi.  3.  ^gee  contra  Moshdm,  Com.,  1.  85. 
*SeeHofmann,  264. 


Part   I.]  THE   LORD'S  BRETHREN.  Ill 

or  in  part;  or  if  he  did  not,  did  Jesus  during  his  youth  have  regu- 
lar access  to  one?  This  is  a  question  that  cannot  be  positively 
answered.  It  is  said  by  some  that  the  cost  of  a  whole  copy,  or 
even  of  a  part,  was  so  great  that  a  poor  man  could  not  possess  it. 
But  others,  as  Edersheim,  affirm  that  every  devout  Jew  could 
have  at  least  some  part  of  the  Scriptures,  and  if  Joseph  had  not, 
Jesus  could  have  found  a  copy  in  the  school  for  Bible  study. 

We  may  beheve  that  in  Him  the  words  of  the  Psalmist  found 
their  perfect  fulfillment  (Ps.  i.  2.):  "His  delight  is  in  the  law  of 
the  Lord;  and  in  His  law  doth  he  meditate  day  and  night."  But 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  during  all  these  years  He  ever 
took  upon  himself  the  work  of  a  teacher.  The' time  for  this  had 
not  come.  He  was  silent  till  God  by  the  voice  of  the  Baptist 
called  Him  forth.     (See  Mark  vi.  2  ff.) 

THE   LORD'S    BRETHREN. 

It  is  an  interesting  inquiry,  and  one  that  may  i^roperly  be  con- 
sidered here,  Who  constituted  the  household  of  Joseph  and  Mary 
at  Nazareth?  Was  Jesus  the  only  child  in  the  family  circle;  or,  if 
there  were  other  cTnlcIreii^iri" what  relation  did  they  stand  to  Him? 
Mention  is  several  times  made  by  tlie  Evangelists  of  His  brothers  and 
sisters.  Who  were  they  ?  This  question  has  been  in  dispute  from 
very  early  times,  and  many  elaborate  essays  have  been  written  upon 
it;  but  opinions  are  as  much  at  variance  now  as  ever.  Credner 
(Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.,  570)  makes  an  apt  quotation  from  Bacon: 
* '  Citius  emerget  veritan  ex  errors  quam  ex  confusione. "  Its  impartial  dis- 
cussion has  l)een  hindered  by  dogmatic  considerations  connected  with 
the  perpetual  virginity  of  the  Lord's  mother,  with  Church  polity,  and 
with  the  canonicity  of  non-Apostolic  epistles.  Passing  by  these  for 
the  present,  and  avoiding,  so  far  as  possible,  mere  conjectures,  let  us 
attempt  to  bring  the  matter  in  its  more  important  bearings  fairly 
before  us. 

Let  us  first  sum  up  what  we  know  from  the  New  Testament  of  the 
brothers  and  sisters  of  the  Lord.  They  are  mentioned  in  Matthew 
xii.  46-50,  xiii.  55-56;  Mark  iii.  ol,  vi.  3;  Luke  viii.  19;  John  ii.  12, 
vii.  3;  Acts  i.  14;  1  Cor.  ix.  5;  and  St.  Paul  speaks  of  a  James  the 
Lord's  brother  (Galatians  i.  19).  Of  the  brothers,  there  seem  to  have 
been  four,  whose  names  are  given  by  Matth^ew  xiii.  55 :  James,  Joses, 
Simon,  and  Judas;  in  the  Revised  Version.  James,  Joseph,  Simon, 
and  Judas  (see  Mark  vi.  3).  Both  Evangelists  mention  the  sisters,  but 
neither  the  number  nor  the  names  arc  given.     From  the  langTiage  of 


113  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  1. 

the  Nazarenes  (Matthew  xiii.  56),  "  His  sisters,  are  they  not  all  with 
us  ?"  there  must  have  beenat  least  two,  probably  more,  and  apparently 
married,  and  resident  at  Nazareth.  (Woolsey,  "at  least  three"; 
Mill,  four.)  These  brothers  and  sisters  are  not  mentioned  at  all  till 
after  the  Lord  began  His  ministry,  and  are  first  mentioned  as  going 
with  His  mother  and  Himself  to  Capernaum  (John  ii.  12).  It  is  in 
dispute  whether  any  were  believers  in  His  Messianic  claims,  at  least 
till  the  very  end  of  His  ministry  (John  vii.  3-10).  Most  say  that 
they  were  made  believers  through  His  resurrection,  as  they  immedi- 
ately after  appear  in  company  with  the  Apostles  (Acts  i.  14). 

In  all  the  references  to  the  Lord's  brethren  several  things  are 
noticeable:  first,  that  they  are  always  called  brothers  and  sisters, 
ddeXfpol,  d5eX0dt;  not  cousins,  dv^LOL,  or  kinsmen,  <Tvyy€veis\  second, 
that  their  relationship  is  always  defined  with  reference  to  Him,  not 
to  Joseph  or  to  Mary;  thej'  are  always  called  His  brothers  and 
sisters,  not  sons  and  daughters  of  Mary;  third,  that  they  always 
appear  in  connection  with  Mary  (except  in  John  vii.  3)  as  if  her 
children,  members  of  her  household,  and  under  her  direction. 

We  may  thus  classify  the  several  theories  respecting  them :  first, 
that  they  were  His  own  brothers  and  sisters,  the  children  of  Joseph 
and  Mary;  second,  that  they  were  the  children  of  Joseph  by  a 
former  marriage,  and  so  His  step-brothers  and  sisters;  third,  that 
they  were  children  of  a  sister  of  His  mother,  and  so  His  cousins 
german  —  consohriiii.  Some  make  them  His  cousins  on  His  father's 
side,  not  on  the  mother's — jxitrueles;  and  some.  His  cousins  on  both 
sides.  These  three  theories  are  sometimes  called  from  the  names  of 
their  original  or  chief  advocates,  the  Helvidian,  the  Epiphanian,  and 
the  Hieronymian.'  It  is  the  last  theory,  as  most  generally  held,  which 
ve  will  first  examine. 

1.  Hieronymian  Theory. —  In  a  question  involving  so  many  intricate 
details,  we  will  begin  our  inquiry  by  asking.  What  blood  relatives  had 
the  Lord's  parents?  There  are  two  sources  of  information,  the  New 
Testament  and  tradition.  From  the  first  we  learn  very  little  of 
Joseph.  Aside  from  the  genealogical  tal)lcs,  nothing  is  said  of  his 
relatives  or  of  his  history.  In  the  table  (Matthew  i.  16)  his  father's 
name  is  given  as  Jacob,  the  son  of  Matthan;  in  Luke  (iii.  23),  if  we 
accept  this  as  the  genealogy  of  Joseph,  it  is  Heli.  Nothing  is 
said  as  to  his  age  at  the  time  of  his  marriage  to  Marj%  or  as  to  any 
former  marriage. 

Of  Mary's  relatives,  the  New  Testament  gives  us  very  slight  infor- 
mation.    She  is  called  a   "cousin"  of  Elisabeth — o-i;77ec^s  —  R.  V., 


1  See  Bp.  Lightfoot,  Com.  on  ( Jiilatiaiis.  Dissertation  II.  342. 


Part  I  ]  THE   lord's   brethren.  113 

"  Kinswoman"  (Luke  i.  36).  We  know  that  she  had  a  sister  only  by 
incidental  mention  (John  xix.  25):  "  Now  there  stood  by  tlie  cross  of 
Jesus  His  mother,  and  His  mother's  sister,  Mary  the  wife  of  Cleophas, 
and  Mary  Magdalene."  (In  W.  and  H.  Tisch.  for  Cleo})hus  is  read 
Clopas:  So  R.  V.)  The  relation  of  Mary  to  Clopas  is  undetermined, 
Mop/a  ^  ToO  KXcoTra.  Examining  this- passage,  two  questions  arise, 
one  of  punctuation,  and  one  of  relationship.  Are  there  three  women 
mentioned  here,  or  four?  If  three,  we  have,  first,  the  Lord's 
mother;  second,  Mary  her  sister,  who  is  called  the  wife  of  CleojDhas; 
and  third,  Mary  Magdalene.  If  four,  we  have,  first,  the  Lord's 
mother;  second,  her  sister,  name  not  mentioned;  third,  Mary  icife  of 
Cleophas;  and  fourth,  Mary  Magdalene.' 

If  we  assume  that  there  were  four,  and  that  the  Virgin's  sister  was 
not  Mary  of  Clopas,  who  was  she?  It  is  said  by  some  that  she  was 
Salome  the  wife  of  Zebedee,  and  mother  of  the  two  apostles,  James 
and  John.  (So  Wies.,  M.  and  M.,  Eders.,  Dwight.)  Tradition  has 
been  busy  with  Salome,  as  with  Joseph  and  Mary.  According  to  one 
report  accepted  by  a  Lapide,  she  was  the  daughter  of  Alphseus  and 
Mary,  and  older  than  her  brothers,  James  and  Joses,  and,  of  course, 
the  Lord's  relative  in  the  same  degree.  Her  two  sons  were  thus  much 
younger  than  their  uncles,  James  and  Joses.  According  to  another 
report  she  was  the  daughter  of  Alphfeus  by  a  former  marriage.  (For 
other  accounts,  see  Winer,  sub  voce.) 

If  this  were  so,  her  sons  were  the  Lord's  relatives;  and  some  find 
a  proof  of  this  in  the  request  of  their  mother  for  the  two  highest 
places  in  His  Kingdom  (Matt.  xx.  20).  But  this  may  be  explained 
by  the  high  estimation  in  which  they  stood  in  His  eyes.  If  they  had 
been  His  cousins  —  blood  relatives  —  some  trace  of  it  would  be  found 
in  early  tradition,  but  there  is  none.  If  she  was  not  Salome,  we 
have  no  knowledge  whatsoever  of  this  sister  of  the  Virgin. 

Assuming  for  the  present,  that  the  sister  of  the  Virgin,  using  the 
term  sister  in  its  ordinary  sense,  was  Mary,  that  she  was  the  wife  of 
Clopas,  and  identifying  Clopas  with  Alphseus,  had  they  any  child- 
ren? This  we  can  ascertain  only  by  a  minute  comparison  of  names 
and  relationships,  and  this  our  space  does  not  permit.  Let  us  then 
admit  that  Alphseus  and  Mary  had  two  sons,  James  and  Joses,  and 
perhaps  two  more,  Judas  and  Simeon,  though  this  is  much  disputed, 

1  As  to  the  point  whether  three  or  four  women,  modern  ophiionp  are  much  divided. 
In  favor  of  three:  Neander,  A.  Norton,  Stier,  Mill,  Bleek,  Ebrard,  Ellicott,  Godet,  Pret^- 
Bense,  Caspari,  McClellan,  and  all  Roman  Catholic  writers.  In  favor  of  four:  Lucke, 
Wieseler,  Ewald,  Meyer,  Schaff,  Riggenhach,  Luthardt,  Edersheim,  Weiss,  Woolsey, 
Weetcott,  Dwight.  In  the  Syrian  version  we  read:  "His  mother,  His  mother's  sister 
ftnd  Mary  of  Cleophas,  and  Mary  Magdalene."    (Murdock's  Trans.) 


114  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD,  [Part   I. 

and  the  proof  is  not  strong;  and  some  daughters.  Can  we  identify 
them  with  the  brothers  and  sisters  of  the  Lord?  Here,  three  points 
are  to  be  considered:  1st,  the  actual  degree  of  relationship;  2d,  the 
fact  that  the  Lord  and  His  brethren  made  one  liousehold;  3d,  the 
use  of  tlie  terms  brother  and  sister,  as  denoting  the  rehitionship. 

1.  It  is  obvious  that  if  our  Lord  had  any  cousins  in  the  true  sense 
—  blood  relatives  —  it  must  have  been  on  tlie  mother's  side.  The 
children  of  Alphseus,  admitting  him  to  have  been  the  brother  of 
Joseph,  the  husband  of  Mary,  were  not  relatives  of  this  degree  unless 
his  wife  was  a  blood  relative  of  the  Virgin.  If  tlie  two  were  sisters, 
then  only  their  children  were  cousins. 

But  it  is  said  by  many  Roman  Catholic  writers  that  the  Virgin 
had  no  sister;  she  was  the  only  child  of  her  parents.'  The  term 
"sister"  (John  xix.  25)  is  therefore  equivalent  only  to  "kinswoman  " 
or  "relative."  But  a  relative  of  what  degree?  Here,  all  is  uncer- 
tainty, and  we  cannot  afiirm  that,  on  His  mother's  side,  the  Lord  had 
any  blood  relatives,  a  Lapide  quotes  Baronius  as  affirming  that  the 
Virgin  had  three  female  relatives  —  tres  ponit  Marias  sorores,  id  ed 
coiimhrinas  B.  Viginis  —  one  the  wife  of  Alphseus,  one  the  wife  of 
Cleophas,  and  one  the  wife  of  Zebedee.  How  these  three  Maries  were 
related  to  the  Virgin  and  to  one  another,  we  are  not  told. 

We  now  ask  in  what  relationship  Alphseus  stood  to  Joseph  and 
Mary?  It  is  said  by  Hegesippus  (Euseb.  iii.  11),  that  Joseph  and 
Alphseus  were  brothers,  and  this  is  regarded  by  many  as  trustworthy ;" 
but  others  understand  this  as  meaning  that  they  were  brothers-in-law, 
having  married  sisters.  But  admitting  their  brotherhood,  the  cliildren 
of  Alphteus  were  not,  therefore,  the  Lord's  cousins,  although  nephews 
and  nieces  of  Joseph.  If,  indeed,  Joseph  and  the  Virgin  were 
cousins,  she  being,  as  some  say,  the  eldest  daughter  of  his  father's 
brother,  then  Alphseus  was  also  her  cousin,  and  his  children  the 
Lord's  cousins  in  the  second  degree. 

The  many  uncertainties  we  find  as  to  the  relationship  of  these  sev- 
eral parties  make  any  conclusions  of  little  value.  Had  the  Virgin  a 
sister?  Was  she  the  "Mary  of  Clopas"?  In  what  relation  did  she 
stand  to  Clopas  —  as  wife,  or  mother,  or  daughter?  Was  Clopas  the 
the  same  as  Alphseus  ?  Is  he  to  be  identified  with  the  Alphseus, 
the  father  of  Levi  ?  Was  he  the  brother  of  Joseph  ?  What  children  had 
he?  To  these  and  other  questions  we  can  give  no  positive  answers. 
If  the  Virgin  had  no  sister,  but  had  a  female  relative  of  an  unknown 
degree,  who  had  children,  these  were  only  kinsmen  of  Jesus  in  an 
indefinite  sense.     We  do  not  know  what  the  actual  degree  of  con- 


»  Welte  11.  Weltzer,  Kirchen  Lex.,  6,  837;  Ilofinnnn,  ,5;  Friedlieb,  330. 
2  Bleek,  Godet,  Edersheim,  Bp.  Lightfoot, 


Part   1.]  THE   lord's   brethren,  115 

sanguinity  between  the  Lord  and  the  children  of  Alphaeus  was,  or 
wliether  there  was  any. 

2.  Let  us  consider  the  fact,  that  the  Lord  and  His  brethren  made 
one  household  under  the  care  of  the  Virgin.  If  these  were  the  children 
of  Alphffius  and  Mary,  it  implies  that  one  jaarent,  at  least,  was  dead. 
Some  say  that,  AliDhaeus  dying  early,  Joseph  took  his  widow  and  her 
children  into  his  own  house,  perhaps  adopted  them  as  his  own;' 
others,  that,  Joseph  dying  first,  Alphanis  took  the  Virgin  and  Jesus 
to  his  house;  and  others,  that,  Alphteus  dying  without  children, 
Joseph  married  the  widow  according  to  the  law  of  the  levirate  mar- 
riage. (On  the  various  and  discordant  views  of  the  fathers,  see  a 
Lapide  on  Matt.  xiii.  55.)  It  is  plain  that  all  these  are  merely  con- 
jectures, and  do  not  sufficiently  account  for  the  fact  that  the  Lord's 
brothers  always  appear  as  under  the  immediate  care  of  the  Virgin,  no 
mention  being  made  of  their  own  parents.  If  it  were  proved  that 
Alphaeus  died  first,  and  that  Joseph  took  his  children  and  adopted 
them,  and  himself  died  later  before  the  Lord  began  His  public  min- 
istry, and  that  the  two  widows  and  their  children  made  one  family; 
it  is  very  improbable  that  the  other  Mary  should  never  be  spoken  of 
even  by  those  who,  as  the  Nazareues,  were  well  acquainted  with 
their  domestic  relations.  We  must,  therefore,  conjecture,  that  she 
also  was  dead. 

3.  The  use  of  the  terms  denoting  the  relationship.  If  there  was 
any  consanguinity,  there  is  no  proof  of  it  closer  than  that  of  cousins  of 
the  second  degree.  Why,  then,  do  the  Evangelists  call  them  "brothers 
and  sisters  "  ?  The  advocates  of  this  theory  affirm  that  these  terms 
are  used  in  the  indefinite  sense  of  "  relatives  "  and  "  kinsmen,"  not  in 
their  primary  and  usual  sense.  But  if  this  be  the  meaning  of  the 
Evangelists,  why  do  they  not  use  the  more  indefinite  terms  ?  It  is 
obvious  that  when  Jesus  is  called  the  ' '  son  "  of  Joseph,  or  Joseph  is 
called  his  "  father,"  the  relation  is  not  that  which  the  terms  usually  ex- 
press, and  this  from  necessity;  it  is  not  so  when  called  "the  son  of 
Mary."  If  the  Lord  had  cousins-german,  there  is  no  reason  why  they 
should  not  be  so  called,  the  Greek  tongue  having  a  special  word  for 
that  relation.  If  St.  Paul  (Col.  iv.  10)  spoke  of  "Marcus,  sister's 
son  to  Barnabas,"  (in  R.  V.,  "the  cousin  of  Barnabas,")  why  was  it 
not  used  here  where  it  would  be  wholly  appropriate  ?  The  reply  that 
the  Jews  had  no  special  word  to  express  this  relationship,  and  there- 
fore used  the  word  brother  to  express  it,'^  is  not  wholly  accurate. 
Brother  in  Hebrew,  in  its  first  and  proper  sense,  applies  to  those  who 


>  SoDollinger,  104;  Schegg;    Matt.  xii.  46. 

8  So  Maldonatus,  Matt.  xii.  46;  Solitos  consobrinos  et  cocrnatosfratres  appellari. 


116  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  1. 

have  the  same  parents,  or  oue  parent  in  common;  it  defines  tliat  de- 
gree of  blood  relationship,  but  it  does  not  define  other  degrees,  as 
that  of  cousin.  When  used  of  others,  not  ])rothers  and  sisters,  it 
affirms  some  relationship  which  may  be  of  blood  or  alliance  or  friend- 
ship, the  nature  of  which  must  be  learned  from  other  sources.' 
When  the  Nazarenes  asked :  "Are  not  His  brethren  James,  and  Joses, 
and  Simon,  and  Judas  ?  And  His  sisters,  are  they  not  all  with  us  ? " 
they  either  expressed  a  definite  relationship  such  as  the  words  mean, 
or  one  wholly  indefinite.  We  cannot  doubt  that  they  meant  to  ex- 
press more  than  the  fact  of  some  undefined  relationship.  They  do 
not  ask,  Are  not  these  His  kinsmen  and  kinswomen  ?  They  sjieak  of 
brothers  and  sisters;  had  they  meant  cousins,  the  nephews  and 
nieces  of  Joseph,  they  would  have  expressed  it  in  some  other  way. 

It  is  clearly  better  to  hold  to  the  primary  meaning  of  these  terms, 
unless  compelled  to  depart  from  it.  If  we  regard  them  as  equivalent  to 
relatives,  we  cannot  tell  what  degree  of  relatiousliip  in  any  given  case 
is  intended,  but  must  learn  this  in  some  other  way.  Most  transla- 
tions of  the  Gospels  render  them  in  the  definite  sense.  So  the  Vul- 
gate, Luther,  Weizsacker,  and  English  versions.  But  Norton,  in  his 
translation  of  the  Gospels,  uses  the  terms,  "kinsmen,"  "He  and  His 
mother  and  His  kinsmen,"  "His  kinsmen  said  to  Him,"  "And  His 
kinsmen  James  and  Joses  .  .  .  and  His  kinswomen."  If  we  de- 
part from  the  primary  meaning,  this  is  doubtless  the  best  rendering 
as  expressing  the  fact  of  kinship,  but  leaving  undecided  its  degree. 
The  burden  of  proof  lies  upon  those  who  affirm  that  the  terms, 
"  brothers  and  sisters,"  are  used  by  the  Evangelists  in  the  indefinite 
sense  of  "relatives  or  kinsmen."  This  proof  is  sujiposed  to  be 
found  in  the  language  of  St.  Paul  (Gal.  i.  19),  where  he  speaks  of  a 
James  as  "the  Lord's  brother."  It  is  said  that  this  is  James  the 
Apostle,  the  son  of  Alphseus;  and  as  the  children  of  Alphseus  were 
His  cousins  in  the  first  or  second  degree,  we  may  infer  that  all  of 
them  are  called  by  the  Evangelists  His  brothers  and  sisters. 

We  meet  here  with  many  perplexing  questions,  but  the  central  point 
is,  whether  tliere  were  two  or  three  Jameses.  We  know  that  there 
were  two,  James  the  son  of  Zebedee  and  James  the  son  of  Alijhreus, 
both  of  the  Twelve  (Mark  iii.  17  ffi).  Was  there  a  third  ?  This  is 
denied  by  those  whose  theory  we  are  now  examining.  They  affirm 
that  James  the  Lord's  brother  and  James  the  son  of  Alphsus  were  one 
and  the  same  person.  Without  entering  into  details,  we  must  hold  that 
the  two  are  not  to  be  identified.  It  is  not  clearly  shown  that  St.  Paul 
calls  the  Lord's  brother  an  apostle.     After  speaking  of  seeing  St.  Peter 


1  See  Laurent,  Neiitestamenlliche  Siitdien,  156. 


Part  I.]  THE  lord's  BRETHREN.  117 

at  Jerusalem,  St.  Paul  says:  "But  others  of  the  apostles  saw  I 
none  save  James,  the  Lord's  brother."  (R.  V.  margin,  "but  only.") 
Does  he  mean,  "I  saw  no  other  of  the  apostles  save  James?"  If 
so,  James  is  included  among  the  apostles.  Biit  the  words  may  be 
rendered :  "I  saw  none  other  of  the  apostles,  but  I  saw  James,  the 
Lord's  brother."  Thus  rendered,  James  is  brought  into  contrast  with 
the  apostles,  and  excluded  from  them.'  But  if  included  among  them, 
is  the  word  "apostle"  used  here  in  its  narrower  or  larger  sense  ?  If  this 
James  was  the  son  of  Alphseus,  he  was  one  of  the  Twelve ;  and  those, 
therefore,  who  think  that  he  is  here  called  an  apostle  only  in  the  larger 
sense,  exclude  him  from  the  Twelve,  and  so  deny  him  to  be  tlie  son  of 
Alphajus,-  and  thus  make  three  Jameses. 

It  should  here  be  noted  that  those  who  identify  James  the  son  of 
Alphoeus  and  James  the  Lord's  brother,  make  one  or  more  of  the  other 
sons  to  be  apostles.  This  is  said  of  Judas.  Mill  says:  "James  and 
Jude  are  found  to  be  of  the  Twelve,  and  Simon  has  been  by  many 
not  improbably  thought  identical  with  Simon  Zelotes  of  the  same 
number." ' 

But  here  we  meet  the  difficulty  that  only  six  months  before  the  Lord's 
death  it  is  said  by  John  vii.  5 :  "  For  neither  did  His  brethren  believe 
on  Him  "  ;  and  yet  two,  if  not  three  of  these  brethren,  it  is  claimed,  (a 
third,  Simon,  if  not  an  apostle,  is  said  to  have  been  one  of  the  Seventy,) 
were  apostles,  and  had  been  living  with  Him  as  such,  and  sent  out  by 
Ilim  on  a  special  mission.  It  is  not  satisfactory  to  say  that  they  liad 
only  a  little  faith,  or  had  temporarily  lost  their  faith;  the  Evangelist's 
words  clearly  affirm  that  up  to  this  time  His  brethren  had  not 
believed  on  Him,  and  did  not  count  themselves  as  His  disciples,  as  thus 
distinguished ;  nor  do  the  narratives  distinguish  between  them  as  part 
believers  and  part  unbelievers.  "We  are  bound  to  include  them  all  in 
one  class  or  the  other.  So  in  Acts  i.  14  and  1  Cor.  ix.  5  we  cannot 
distinguish  between  them  and  say  that  two  are  to  be  counted  among 
the  apostles. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  James  the  Lord's  brother  cannot  be 
identified  with  James  the  son  of  Alpha^us ;  and,  therefore,  the  rela- 
tionship of  cousin  fails  to  be  sustained,  and  with  this  the  identity 
of  his  children  with  the  brethren  of  the  Lord   is  unproved.     Who 


lAs  to  the  grammatical  construction,  see  Winer,  Gram.;  Ellicott,  97,  note  2;  Bp. 
liightf oot,  in  loco.  In  favor  of  the  construction  exchxdhig  him  from  the  apostles,  Grotius, 
Credner,  Bleek,  Schaflf,  Thiersch,  Laurent,  McClellan,  and  many;  on  the  other,  the  Roman 
Catholics  commentators  in  general,  and  Meyer,  Lichtenstein,  Pressense,  Bp.  Light 
/oot,  Ellicott. 

2  So  Ellicott,  Bp.  Lightfoot,  and  many. 

3  So,  as  regards  James  and  Judas,  Dollinger,  104;  Friedlieb,  333;  a  Lapide. 


118  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  1 

James  was  and  what  place  he  held  iu  the  Church,  are  points  that  will 
soon  meet  us. 

2.  The  EpipTianian  Theoj'p.— But  if  the  brethren  of  the  Lord 
were  not  the  children  of  Alphfeus  and  Mary,  who  were  they? 
We  turn  for  an  answer  to  the  second  theory  mentioned  before, 
that  they  were  the  children  of  Joseph  by  an  earlier  marriage. 
On  what  ground  can  such  a  marriage  be  affirmed?  The  New 
Testament  gives  us  no  hint  of  it,  and  we  know  of  it  only  from 
early  tradition.  The  first  notice  of  it  is  in  some  apocryphal  gos- 
pels, written  probably  in  the  first  part  of  the  second  century.  In 
them  we  are  told  that  Joseph  had  several  sons  and  daughters  before 
his  marriage  with  the  Virgin,  being  then  an  old  man.'  Have  these 
statements  a  basis  of  fact,  "  a  genuine  ajjostolic  tradition,"  or  are  they, 
as  Jerome  called  them,  ^  ^  deliramenta  apocryp1wrum''''1  There  is  cer- 
tainly nothing  intrinsically  improbable  in  them,  and  they  may  easily 
be  separated  from  the  legends  in  which  they  are  imbedded,  and  we 
know  that  they  were  received  very  early  by  many  of  the  fathers,  both 
Greek  and  Latin,*  and  are  accepted  to  this  day  by  the  Greek  Church, 
and  by  many  Protestants.  All  that  we  can  now  do,  is  to  see  whether, 
assuming  their  truth,  they  harmonize  with  and  explain  the  gospel 
narrative. 

It  is  obvious  at  once,  that  some  of  the  difficulties  we  have  found 
in  the  examination  of  the  former  theory  are  removed.  If  Joseph 
had  sons  and  daughters  by  a  former  wife,  we  can  understand  the 
use  of  the  terms  ' '  the  Lord's  brothers  and  sisters"  by  the  Naza- 
renes.  Knowing  that  he  had  been  twice  married,  and  ignorant  of 
the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  they  would  not  hesitate  to  call  the 
children  of  the  first  wife  the  Lord's  brothers  and  sisters.  Very  few 
among  us  at  the  present  day  would  speak  of  children  so  related  as 
half-brothers,  unless  there  were  some  special  reason  for  making  the 
distinction. 

In  this  case,  all  of  Joseph's  children  must  have  been  older  than 
Jesus,  and  some  of  them  much  older,  and  this  may  help  to  explain 
their  treatment  of  Him  when  they  thought  Him  becoming  too  zealous 
or  enthusiastic  in  His  work  (TVIark  iii.  21-31 ;  see  Mill,  223),  and  in 
general,  their  unbelief  in  His  Messianic  claims.  It  is  probable,  that 
James,  who  is  generally  thought  to  have  been  the  eldest  of  the  sons. 


1  In  the  "  History  of  Joseph,"  ch.  ii.,  the  names  of  his  children  by  his  first  wife  are 
given — Judas,  Justin,  Jacobus,  and  Simon;  and  daughters,  Anna  and  Lydia.  See  Hof- 
mann,  4. 

2  Maldonatus  says,  Matt.  xii.  46, /rt?;/rt  o;»'»io«f  (»«?'««  prtf^fff^/rffwrs  Graecifvenmt 
.  .  .  Ex  La/inis,  IlUarius  et  Ambrodus.  See  also  the  catena  of  references  to  the 
fathers  in  Bp.  Lightfoot,  259. 


Part  L]  THE  LORD'S  BRETHREN.  119 

was  at  this  time  between  forty  find  fifty  years  of  age,  for  he  must 
have  been  some  fifteen  years  old  at  the  birth  of  Jesus.  Naturally, 
they  "would  all  be  disposed  to  look  down  upon  Him  as  so  much 
younger,  and  to  give  less  credence  to  His  divine  mission.  Persons 
of  such  maturity,  and  of  fixed  modes  of  belief,  would  not  so  readily 
accept  His  claims  and  teachings  as  brothers  and  sisters  younger  than 
Himself.  The  same  feeling  may  have  arisen  here  as  in  the  case  of 
Joseph  and  his  brethren  (Gen.  xxxvii.  8  if.),  and  given  a  keener  edge 
to  the  proverb:  "A  prophet  is  not  without  honor  except  in  his  own 
house." 

If  they  were  His  elder  brothers,  we  can  also  better  understand 
their  special  position  among  the  disciples  after  they  believed  on  Him, 
and  the  high  estimation  in  which  they  were  held  by  the  churches; 
we  can  also,  in  this  way,  best  explain  the  official  position  and  influ- 
ence of  James,  and  the  fact  that  he  was  the  accepted  representative 
of  the  Jewish  Christians.  It  was  to  him,  in  all  probability,  that 
the  Lord  appeared  after  His  resurrection  (1  Cor.  xv.  7),  and  per- 
haps through  his  testimony,  all  his  brothers  became  believers,  and 
were  with  the  Apostles  before  the  day  of  Pentecost  (Acts  1.  14) ; 
and  it  was  of  him  that  Eusebius  speaks  (Ch.  Hist.,  ii.  25)  as  the 
first  Bishop  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem.  He  was  called  the  "just," 
and  was  a  strict  observer  of  the  law,  and  the  chief  official  repre- 
sentative of  the  Jewish  Christian  part  of  the  Church  (Acts  xv.  13; 
xxi.  18).  His  age,  his  personal  character,  and  his  position,  made 
him  very  conspicuous  and  influential;  and  if  to  this  we  add  his 
relationship  to  the  Lord,  we  can  understand  why  he  should  be 
classed  among  "the  pillars,"  and  his  name  be  put  before  those  of 
Cephas  and  John  (Gal.  ii.  9).  We  can  also  understand  why  Judas 
should  designate  liimself  in  his  epistle  only  as  "  the  brother  of  James," 
the  less  known  by  the  better  known. 

The  Lord's  brethren  seem  to  have  been  distinguished,  for  a  time, 
both  from  the  Apostles  and  the  believers  in  general,  as  if  forming  a 
special  class  (1  Cor.  ix.  5).  Probably  one  ground  of  this  distinction 
lay  in  the  respect  felt  for  those  who,  for  so  many  years,  had  stood  in 
such  close  communion  with  the  Holy  One;  and  possibly,  also,  their 
Davidic  descent. 

But  in  this  identification  of  the  children  of  Joseph  with  the  Lord's 
brethren,  there  are  some  difficulties.  If  Joseph  had  sons  older  than 
Jesus,  had  they  not  the  legal  claim  to  the  throne  of  David?  If 
the  claim  of  the  Lord  rested  on  His  legal  right  as  the  adopted  son 
of  Joseph  (see  a  Lapide  on  Matt.  i.  16;  Mill,  210),  had  not  His  elder 
brother,  James,   a  prior  title?     But  if  His  title  came  through  His 


120  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  1. 

mother,  as  is  implied  in  the  angel's  words,  "The  Lord  God  sliall 
give  uuto  Him  the  throne  of  His  father  David,"  the  difficulty  is 
removed.  (So  Bengel:  Ipsa  erat  heres  partis  suae,  et  jus  regni  David- 
icae  in  Jesum  transmittebat.) 

Again,  as  the  children  of  Joseph  were  all  older  than  Jesus,  it  is 
not  easy  to  explain  their  continued  presence  with  His  mother;  it  is 
natural  to  suppose  that  they  were  already,  at  the  l)cgiuning  of  His 
ministry,  married  men,  and  residents  in  some  town  in  Galilee, 
whether  in  Nazareth  or  in  its  vicinity.  It  may  be  said  that  they 
were  with  her  only  on  special  occasions  and  when  summoned  by  her, 
but  the  impression  is  made  that  they  constituted  one  household. 

Again,  it  may  surprise  us,  that  the  two  families  of  Joseph  and 
Alphteus  should  have  so  many  sons  of  the  same  name,  but  this  is  to 
be  explained  by  the  poverty  of  names  at  that  time,  and  so  the  con- 
stant repetition  of  a  few.  But  that  three  or  four  cousins  should  have 
the  same  name  is  not  so  remarkable  as  that  the  same  name  should 
be  given  to  two  sisters.' 

3.  HeMdian  Theory. —  But  if  neither  of  the  views  already  pre- 
sented is  accepted  by  us,  if  the  Lord's  brethren  were  neither  His 
half  brothers  nor  His  cousins,  they  must  have  been  His  brothers  in 
the  full  sense  —  the  children  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  This  view  has  the 
great  advantage  that  it  takes  the  words  "brother"  and  "  sister"  in 
their  natural  sense.  Passing  by,  for  the  present,  the  question  of 
Mary's  perpetual  virginity,  and  assuming  that  these  were  her  children, 
how  do  we  thus  meet  the  conditions  of  the  narrative? 

As  they  were,  at  least,  six  in  number,  and  all  younger  than  the 
Lord,  He  must  have  been,  after  Joseph's  death,  the  head  of  the  fam- 
ily, and  its  responsibilities  would  devolve  upon  Him.  (So  Eders.  i. 
250.)  It  is  obvious  that,  in  this  position.  He  would  have  great  influ- 
ence in  moulding  the  character  of  the  younger  children ;  and  this  makes 
it  more  difficult  to  see  why  they  should  not  earlier  have  accepted  His 
teaching  and  mission.  It  may  be  said,  indeed,  that  their  attitude 
was  not  one  of  hostility,  but  rather  of  doubt ;  and  that  their  domes- 
tic familiarity  with  Him  was  a  hindrance  to  a  right  appreciation  of 
His  work.  On  the  other  hand,  their  youth  best  explains  their  pres- 
ence with  their  mother;  and  the  sons  still  may  have  made  one  fam- 
ily, although  the  eldest  at  the  death  of  Jesus  was  proljably  about 
thirty  years  of  age.  Still,  there  is  another  difficulty :  if  her  own  sons 
were  then  living,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  why  the  Lord  at  His  death 
should  have  committed  her  to  the  care  of  John  (John  xix.  26).     This 


1  According  to  Smith,  Bible  Diet.  i.  231,  Josepliiis  mentions  31  Simons,  17  Joses, 
and  16  Judes;  and  in  tlic  New  Testament,  mention  is  made  of  13  Simons,  and  of  nearly 
as  many  Josephs  or  Joses.    Bp.  Lightfoot,  255. 


Part  L]  THE  LORD'S  BRETHREN,  121 

objection  would  also  apply,  though  not  with  equal  force,  if  they  were 
her  step-sons.  But  in  our  ignorance  of  the  circumstances  we  cannot 
draw  any  positive  inferences  from  this  act  of  the  Lord.  It  may  be 
that  He  foresaw  that  she  would  have  with  John  a  life  of  greater 
peace  and  quiet  than  with  her  children,  whether  her  own  or  those  of 
Joseph;  and  t'nat  he  could  not  only  better  supply  her  bodily  wants, 
Imt  also  better  comfort  and  strengthen  her  in  the  peculiar  spiritual 
trials  through  which  she  would  be  called  to  pass. 

But  this  view,  that  Mary  had  other  children  than  Jesus,  is  sum- 
marily rejected  by  a  very  large  part  of  the  church,  on  the  ground  of 
her  perpetual  virginity.  This  is  either  an  article  of  faith,  as  with 
the  Greeks  and  Romans  —  Semper  mansisse  virginem,  dogma  est  fidei, — 
or  a  matter  of  feeling.  It  is  expressed  in  the  Lutheran  symbols,  and 
in  the  Helvetic  Confession  the  Lord  is  spoken  of  as  naUis  ex  Maria 
semper  virgine.  A  large  number  of  Protestant  writers  in  all  the  re- 
ligious bodies  strongly  maintain  the  perpetual  virginity.  Pearson'  says 
that  the  Church  of  God  in  all  ages  has  maintained  that  she  continued 
in  the  same  virginity."  But  into  the  history  of  opinions,  this  is  not 
the  place  to  enter ;  each  of  the  respective  theories  we  have  considered 
presents  its  claims  to  be  the  primitive  belief  of  the  Church.  The  views 
of  the  early  fathers  are  very  clearly,  and  it  would  seem,  fairly,  presented 
by  Bp.  Lightfoot,  260  flf.,  who  himself  holds  the  Epiphanian  account 
to  have  the  highest  claim  to  the  sanction  of  tradition.  Of  the 
Hieronymian  solution,  he  says:  "There  is  not  the  slightest  indi- 
cation that  it  ever  occurred  to  any  individual,  or  sect,  or  church, 
until  it  was  put  forward  by  Jerome  himself."  It  is  said  by  Thiersch 
(Versuch.,  361,  431),  that  the  Epiphanian  view  is  the  only  tradition 
that  existed  during  the  second  and  third  centuries,  and  was  the  rul- 
ing one  till  the  time  of  Jerome.  This  father,  writing  against  Helvid- 
ius,  first  gave  currency  to  the  solution  that  they  were  the  cousins  of 
the  Lord,  and  hence  is  called  by  Baronius  its  fortissimus  adstijm- 
latm'  vel  potius  auctor.  On  the  other  hand,  for  the  defense  of  Jerome, 
see  Mill,  243  ff. 

The  early  belief  in  the  perpetual  virginity  of  Mary  may  perhaps 
be  explained  as  springing  in  part  from  a  desire  to  separate  Christ,  as 
widely  as  possible,  from  other  men.  He  had  no  brothers  or  sisters; 
His  mother  had  no  other  child.  Thus,  not  only  in  His  essential 
personality,  but  in  the  outward  circumstances  of  His  life,  a  broad 
line  of  distinction  was  to  be  drawn  between  Him  and  all  beside.  To 
suppose  that  He  had  brothers  according  to  the  flesh  was  to  degrade 


*  Upon  the  Creed,  Art.  iii. 

-  So  Mill,  273  ff.,  who  gives  the  opinions  of  the  chief  English  divines. 

6 


122  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  I 

Him  by  bringing  Him  into  too  close  relationship  with  weak  and  sin- 
ful men.  The  special  honor  paid  to  Him  would  naturally  cause  high 
honor  to  be  paid  to  His  mother.  To  this  was  added  the  admiration 
of  celibacy  springing  from  Gnostic  principles,  that  began  very  early 
to  prevail.  Both  His  parents  were  thought  to  be  honored  by  being 
presented  to  the  world  as  virgins.  Occasionally  from  time  to  time,  and 
especially  for  a  few  years  past,  the  tendency  has  manifested  itself  to 
bring  more  distinctly  forward  the  humanity  of  Christ,  and  to  give 
prominence  to  the  truth  expressed  by  the  Apostle  (Heb.  ii.  11): 
"  For  both  He  that  sanctifieth  and  they  who  are  sanctified,  are  all  of 
one."  Not  to  remove  Him  from  the  pale  of  human  sympathies,  but 
to  bring  Him  in  as  many  points  as  possible  into  contact  with  the 
experiences  of  human  life,  has  seemed  to  many  best  to  correspond  to 
the  historical  statements  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  doctrinal  statements 
of  the  Epistles.  Hence,  perhaps,  there  is  now  felt  less  reluctance 
to  regard  Him  as  having  been  in  the  truest  sense  a  member  of  the 
family,  having  brothers  and  sisters  bound  to  him  by  ties  of  blood, 
and  as  a  partaker  of  the  common  lot  in  all  the  relationships  of  life 
which  were  possible  to  Him,  that  thus  "  He  might  be  touched  with  a 
feeling  of  our  infirmities." 

Leaving  all  theological  considerations  on  one  side,  the  more 
natural  and  obvious  interpretation  of  the  language  of  the  Evangelists 
leads  to  the  belief  that  the  Lord's  brothers  and  sisters  were  such  in 
the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  words.  In  the  case  of  another  no  hesita- 
ation  could  be  felt.  (But  for  the  right  interpretation  of  their  state- 
ments, particularly  Matt.  i.  25  and  Luke  ii.  7,  we  must  refer  to  the 
commentators.) 

It  has  been  well  remarked  by  Alexander  (on  Mark  vi.  3)  "that  multi- 
tudes of  Protestant  divines  and  others,  independently  of  all  creeds  and 
confessions,  have  believed,  or  rather  felt,  that  the  selection  of  a  woman 
to  be  the  mother  of  the  Lord  carries  with  it,  as  a  necessary  implica- 
cation,  that  no  other  could  sustain  the  same  relation  to  her;  and  that 
the  selection  of  a  virgin  still  more  necessarily  implied  that  she  was  to 
continue  so.  After  all,  it  is  not  so  much  a  matter  of  reason  or  of  faith 
as  of  taste  and  sensibility;  but  these  exert  a  jiotent  influence  on  all 
interpretation,  and  the  same  repugnance,  whether  rational  or  merely 
sentimental,  which  led  fathers  and  reformers  to  deny  that  Christ  had 
brothers  in  the  ordinary  sense,  is  likely  to  produce  the  same  effect  on 
multitudes  forever,  or  until  the  question  has  received  some  un- 
equivocal solution."  The  words  of  Calvin  on  Matt.  i.  25  deserve  to 
be  kept  in  mind :  Certe  nemo  nnquam  hae  de  re  questionem  movent  nisi 
euriosus;  nemo  vero  pertinaciter  insistet  nisi  contentiosus  rixator. 


Part  I.]  THE   lord's  BRETHREN.  123 

We  may  thus  classify  the  more  recent  writers.  1.  That  His 
brethren  were  the  Lord's  cousins  is  held  by  the  Roman  commentators 
and  harmonists;  So  Patritius,  Sepp,  Bucher,  Friedlieb.  So  also,  by 
many  Protestants :  Olshausen,  Lange,  Lichtenstein,  Mill,  Ellicott,  Keil, 
Wordsworth,  Norton. 

2.  That  they  were  the  sons  of  Joseph  by  an  earlier  marriage,  is 
held  by  the  Greeks  in  general.  So  also  by  Thiersch,  Westcott,  Bp. 
Lightfoot,  Salmon. 

3.  That  they  Avere  the  sons  of  Joseph  and  Mary  is  held  by  the 
large  majority  of  Protestants.  So  Neander,  Grcswell,  Meyer,  Winer, 
Alford,  Wieseler,  Stier,  Schaflf,  Ewald,  Edersheim,  Farrar,  Godet, 
Weiss,  Caspari,  Beyschlag. 

See,  upon  this  subject.  Das  Verhdltniss  d^s  Jacobus,  Bruders  des 
Herm,  su  Jacobus  AljyJidi,  von  PJiilipp  Schaf,  1843,  Stier.  Der  Brief 
Juda;  Wieseler,  in  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1842;  Mill,  Mythical  Interpretation, 
219;  Bp.  Lightfoot,  Galatians,  Diss,  ii.,  "The  Brethren  of  the  Lord," 
241;  Greswell,  ii.  108;  Lichtenstein,  100.  See  also  the  several 
Bible  Dictionaries:  Winer,  i.  525;  Smith,  i.  231  and  920;  Riehm, 
663 ;  Herzog,  vi.  409 ;  Schenkel,  i.  482 ;  McClintock  and  Strong. 


PART   II. 


THE  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  LORD'S  MINISTRY. 

In  order  to  understand  the  scope  of  the  Lord's  ministry  in 
its  external  aspects,  as  narrated  by  the  EvangeHsts,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  keep  in  mind  certain  great  facts  that  gave  it  form  and 
character.  We  shall  thus  be  prepared  to  understand  the  sig- 
nificance of  particular  events,  and  to  assign  them  their  proper 
places  in  the  history. 

First,  The  Lord  came  to  a  nation  in  covenant  with  God  — 
His  elect  people.  He  had  chosen  for  them  a  land  in  which  they 
might  dwell  apart  from  the  nations,  and  in  a  wonderful  manner 
had  given  them  possession  of  it.  He  had  given  them  laws  and 
institutions,  which,  rightly  used,  should  secure  their  highest 
national  well-being.  He  had  established  His  temple  in  their 
chief  city,  in  which  He  revealed  Himself  in  the  Visible  Glory, 
and  which  was  appointed  to  be  "a  house  of  prayer  for  all 
nations."  How  highly  they  had  been  honored  and  blessed  of 
God  is  seen  from  His  words  (Exod.  xix.  5-6):  "If  ye  will  obey 
my  voice  indeed,  and  keep  my  Covenant,  then  ye  shall  be  to  me 
a  peculiar  treasure  above  all  people,  and  ye  shall  be  unto  me  a 
kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy  nation."  And  from  among  them 
should  the  great  Deliverer,  the  Seed  of  the  woman,  come.  The 
Messiah  should  reign  at  Jerusalem,  and  from  thence  establish 
justice  and  judgment  throughout  the  earth.  He  was  to  be  of 
the  tribe  of  Judah,  of  the  family  of  David,  and  His  birthplace 
at  Bethlehem;  and  many  other  things  respecting  Him  had  been 
foretold  by  the  propliets. 

To  a  people  thus  in  covenant  with  God,  and  awaiting  the 
Messiah,  Christ  came.  There  was  a  general  expectation  that 
the  long-promised  King  was  about  to  come,  and  a  general  desire 

(125) 


126  THE  LIFfi  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  II. 

for  His  coming.  The  appearing  of  the  Baptist,  and  his  message, 
gave  a  new  impulse  to  the  common  feeling,  and  doubtless,  in 
the  minds  of  many,  changed  what  had  been  but  an  indefinite 
expectation  into  an  assured  hope.  But  how  should  the  nation 
discern  the  Messiah  when  He  came  ?  Would  there  be  such 
wonderful  signs  attending  His  birth  that  it  would  at  once  be 
known?  or  would  His  infancy  and  youth  be  passed  in  obscur- 
ity? How  would  His  public  career  begin?  AVhat  would  be  His 
acts  as  Messiah?  Here  was  a  large  field  for  differences  of  opinion 
among  the  people,  according  to  differences  in  spiritual  charac 
ter  and  discernment.  But  the  great  part  of  the  nation,  includ- 
ing most  of  the  ecclesiastical  rulers  and  teachers,  seems  to  have 
had  no  doubt  that  He  was  to  appear  primarily,  not  as  a  relig- 
ious reformer,  but  as  a  political  leader  and  warrior,  and  that 
one  of  His  first  Messianic  acts  would  be  to  cast  off  the  Roman 
yoke  and  set  the  nation  free.  This  done,  He  would  proceed  to 
restore  the  Mosaic  institutions  to  their  primitive  purity,  and  ful- 
fill the  prediction  that  "  out  of  Zion  should  go  forth  the  law, 
and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem." 

It  is  apparent  that,  thus  mistaking  the  character  and  work 
of  the  Messiah,  the  very  intensity  of  their  desire  for  His  com- 
ing would  but  the  more  certainly  insure  His  rejection.  They 
had  formed  conceptions  of  Him  which  Jesus  could  not  realize. 
Their  ideal  Christ  was  not  the  Christ  of  the  prophets.  To  be 
at  once  received  by  them,  Jesus  must  act  in  a  maimer  corre- 
sponding to  their  preconceived  opinions,  and  thus  fulfill  their 
expectations.  But  this  He  could  not  do,  since  these  expecta- 
tions were  based  upon  misconceptions  of  their  own  moral  needs, 
and  of  God's  purpose.  They  felt  deeply  their  political  servitude, 
but  were  unconscious  of  the  spiritual  bondage  into  which  they 
had  fallen.  They  knew  not  how  utterly  unprepared  they  were 
for  the  coming  of  their  Deliverer,  and  that  His  first  work  would 
be  to  teach  them  what  God  demanded  of  them  as  His  covenant 
people.  Hence  it  was  that  Jesus  could  not  openl}'^  assume  the 
name  of  Messiah,  because  it  had  become  the  exponent  of  so 
many  false  hopes,  and  would  have  gathered  around  Him  a 
body  of  followers  moved  more  by  political  than  spiritual 
impulses. 


Part  II.]       DIVISIONS   OF   THE   LORD'S   MINISTRY.  12? 

Second,  the  will  of  God  that  the  Jews  should  receive  His 
Son.  Here, ,  indeed,  we  meet  the  same  problem  that  we  meet 
everywhere  in  human  history  —  the  foreknowledge  and  purpose 
of  God,  and  the  freedom  and  responsibility  of  man.  According 
to  the  eternal  purpose  of  God,  Christ  was  "  the  Lamb  slain  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world,"  and  without  the  shedding  of  blood 
is  no  remission  of  sin.  "  Known  unto  God  are  all  His  works 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world."  But  the  Jews  knew  not  of 
this  purpose,  although,  as  we  now  see,  it  was  not  dimly  inti- 
mated in  their  sacrificial  rites.  The  Jews  knew  not,  nor  would 
God  have  them  know,  that  they  would  crucify  their  Messiah. 
They  had  not  learned  this  from  their  prophets.  The  Baptist 
said  nothing  of  His  death;  Jesus  Himself,  till  near  the  close  of 
His  ministry,  made  no  distinct  mention  of  it;  the  Apostles,  down 
to  the  week  of  His  Passion,  did  not  comprehend  it.  Wheii 
therefore,  Jesus  presented  Himself  to  the  nation  as  the  Messiah 
it  acted  without  knowledge  of  the  secret  counsel  of  God,  and 
with  entire  freedom.  He  desired  that  His  people  should  receive 
Him.  All  that  God  had  done  for  them  from  the  days  of 
Abraham,  was  with  the  intent  that  they  should  be  a  people 
ready  for  the  Lord  at  His  coming.  The  end  of  all  the  institu 
tions  He  gave  them,  was  so  to  develop  faith  and  holiness  in 
them  that  they  should  discern  and  receive  His  Son.  And 
Jesus,  during  His  ministry,  gave  them  every  possible  proof  of 
His  divine  mission,  and  reproved  and  warned  and  besought 
them,  that  He  might  save  them  from  the  guilt  of  His  rejection; 
yet  all  in  vain.  "  He  came  unto  His  own,  and  His  own  received 
Him  not."  How  touching  are  His  farewell  words  to  Jerusalem 
(Matt,  xxiii.  37)  :  "  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  child- 
ren together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her 
wings,  and  ye  would  not." 

Third,  as  the  covenant  of  God  with  the  Jews  was  a  national 
one,  so  must  also  Christ's  acceptance  or  rejection  be.  Prom  the 
beginning  of  their  history,  God  had  dealt  with  the  people  as  a 
corporate  body.  Their  blessings  were  national  blessings,  their 
punishments  national  punishments.  All  their  mstitutions,  eccle- 
siastical and  civil,  were  so  devised  as  to  deepen  the  feeling  of 
national  unity  —  one  high  priest,  one  temple,  one  altar,  one  roya] 


128  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  \\ 

family,  one  central  city.  What  was  done  by  the  heads  of  th* 
nation  was  regarded  as  the  act  of  all,  and  involving  common 
responsibility.  Only  in  this  way  could  the  purpose  of  God,  in 
their  election  to  be  His  pecuHar  people,  be  carried  out.  Hence, 
in  this  greatest  and  highest  act,  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of 
His  Son,  the  act  must  be  a  national  one.  It  must  be  done  in 
the  name  of  the  whole  people  by  those  who  acted  as  their  right- 
ful representatives.  If  those  who  sat  in  Moses'  seat  should  dis- 
cern and.  receive  Him,  the  way  for  the  further  prosecution  of 
His  work  was  at  once  opened,  and  under  His  Divine  instruc- 
tion the  nation  might  be  purified  and  made  ready  for  the  glori- 
ous kingdom,  so  often  sung  by  the  psalmists  and  foretold  by  the 
prophets.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  He  was  rejected  by  the 
nation  acting  through  its  lawfully  constituted  heads,  this 
national  crime  must  be  followed  by  national  punishment.  Indi- 
viduals might  be  saved  amid  the  general  overthrow,  but  the  peo- 
ple, as  such,  failing  to  fulfill  God's  purpose  in  their  election, 
must  be  scattered  abroad,  and  a  new  people  be  gathered  out  of 
all  nations. 

It  was  under  the  conditions  imposed  by  these  great  historic 
facts  that  the  Lord  began  His  ministry  among  the  Jews.  He 
came  to  a  people  in  covenant  with  God;  a  people  that  God 
desired  to  save,  and  that  must,  as  a  people,  accept  or  reject 
Him.  All  the  details  that  are  given  us  of  that  ministry  by  the 
Evangelists  must,  therefore,  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  these 
facts. 

The  first  event  that  meets  us  in  the  evangelic  narrative  is 
the  mission  of  John  the  Baptist,  the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah. 
Had  the  chosen  people  been  faithful  to  their  covenant,  no  such 
work  of  preparation  for  their  Messiah  would  have  been  neces- 
sary. As  they  were  not  faithful,  God  must  prepare  His  way  by 
announcing  to  them  what  He  was  about  to  do,  and  by  calling 
them  to  repentance.     John's  work  was  threefold. 

First,  he  was  to  announce  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  at 
hand,  and  the  Messiah  about  to  appear.  In  this  announcement  he 
especially  displayed  his  prophetic  character.  To  him  it  had  been 
revealed  that  God  would  now  fulfill  His  promises,  and  send  the 
Redeemer  of  Israel. 


Part  II.]       DIVISIONS  OF  THE  LORD'S  MINISTRY.  129 

Second,  he  was  to  bring  the  nation  to  repentance,  and 
"make  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord."  Here  he 
especially  manifested  himself  as  a  preacher  of  righteousness. 
Of  this  righteousness  the  law  was  the  standard,  and  by  the  law 
must  the  nation  be  judged.  Hence,  John  was  a  preacher  of  the 
law.  The  burden  of  his  message  was,  ''  Repent,  for  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  at  hand."  As  a  wicked,  disobedient  people, 
':hey  were  not  ready  for  that  kingdom.  True,  they  were 
•'Abraham's  children,"  and  "sons  of  the  kingdom,"  but  this  did 
not  suffice.  They  had  broken  the  holy  Covenant,  they  had 
not  hearkened  to  God's  voice,  and  He  had  punished  them 
terribly  in  His  anger  in  the  destruction  of  their  city  and  temple 
by  the  Babylonians,  and  their  long  subsequent  bondage  to  the 
heathen  nations.  The  Baptist  came  to  awaken  them  to  a  sense 
of  their  guilt,  to  make  them  see  how  by  their  unbelief  and  sin 
they  had  frustrated  the  gi'ace  of  God,  and  thus  to  move  them  to 
repentance.  Comparing  the  promises  of  God  with  their  fulfill- 
ment, they  might  see  how  little  He  had  been  able  to  bestow  upon 
them,  how  little  they  had  answered  to  the  end  for  which  He 
chose  them.  How  glorious  the  promises,  how  melancholy  the 
history  !  Their  national  independence  was  gone;  the  covenant 
with  the  house  of  David  was  suspended,  and  the  royal  family  had 
sunk  into  obscurity.  Their  high  priest  was  appointed  by  the 
Roman  governor  for  political  ends,  and  was  a  mere  tool  in  his 
hands;  the  priesthood,  as  a  body,  was  venal  and  proud;  the  voice 
of  prophecy  had  long  been  unheard,  and  for  the  teachings  of 
inspiration  were  substituted  the  sophisms  and  wranglings  of  the 
rabbis ;  the  law  was  made,  in  many  of  its  vital  points,  of  none 
effect  by  traditions;  the  nation  was  divided  into  contending 
sects;  a  large  party,  and  that  comprising  some  of  the  most  rich, 
able,  and  influential,  were  infidels,  open  or  secret;  others,  aspir- 
ing after  a  higher  piety  than  the  observance  of  the  law  could  give, 
wholly  ceased  to  observe  it,  and  withdrew  into  the  wilderness 
to  follow  some  self-devised  ascetic  practices;  still  more  were 
bigots  in  their  reverence  for  the  letter  of  the  law,  but  wholly 
ignorant  of  its  spirit,  and  bitter  and  mtolerant  toward  all  whom 
they  had  the  power  to  oppress.  The  people  at  large  still  con- 
tinued to  glory  in  their  theocratic  institutions,  m  their  temple, 


130  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  II 

in  their  priesthood,  and  deemed  themselves  the  only  true  wor- 
shippers of  God  in  the  world.  They  were  unmindful  that  almost 
everything  that  had  constituted  the  peculiar  glory  of  the  theocracy 
was  lost  by  sin;  that  the  Visible  Glory  that  dwelt  between  the 
cherubim  had  departed;  that  there  was  no  more  response  by  the 
Urim  and  Thummim;  that  the  ark,  with  its  attendant  memorials, 
was  no  more  to  be  found  in  the  Holy  of  Holies;  that  all  those 
supernatural  interpositions  that  had  marked  their  early  history 
had  ceased;  in  short,  that  the  whole  nation  "was  turned  aside 
like  a  deceitful  bow." 

To  the  anointed  eye  of  the  Baptist  the  unpreparedness  of  the 
nation  for  the  Messiah  was  apparent.  He  saw  how  in  it  was 
fulfilled  the  language  of  Isaiah:  "The  whole  head  is  sick,  and 
the  whole  heart  faint.  From  the  sole  of  the  foot  even  unto  the 
head,  there  is  no  soundness  in  it,  but  wounds,  and  bruises,  and 
putrefying  sores";  and  he  would,  if  it  were  possible,  awake  the 
people  to  a  sense  of  their  real  spiritual  condition.  Unless  this 
were  done,  they  could  not  receive  the  Messiah,  and  His  coming 
could  be  only  to  their  condemnation  and  destruction.  Deliver- 
ance was  possible  only  when,  like  their  fathers  in  Egypt,  they 
became  conscious  of  their  bondage,  and  began  to  sigh  and  cry 
for  deliverance  (Exod.  ii.  23). 

To  awaken  in  the  hearts  of  the  Jews  a  deeper  sense  of  their 
sins  and  of  the  need  of  cleansing,  John  began  his  work  of  preach- 
ing and  baptizing.  He  taught  that  this  baptism  was  only  pre- 
paratory, a  baptism  of  repentance  ;  and  that  the  higher  baptism 
of  the  Spirit  they  must  still  receive  at  the  hands  of  the  Messiah 
Himself,  who  was  speedily  to  come.  All  whom  he  baptized 
came  confessing  their  sins  Thus,  the  extent  of  his  baptism  was 
an  index  how  general  was  the  repentance  of  the  people,  and  on 
their  repentance  rested  all  further  preparation  for  the  Messiah. 

Third,  John  was  to  point  out  the  Messiah  personally  to  the 
nation,  when  He  should  appear.  This  was  the  culminating 
point  of  his  ministry,  and  would  naturally  come  near  the  close 
of  the  preparatory  work. 

Let  us,  now,  survey  for  a  moment  the  Baptist's  ministry  as 
narrated  by  the  Evangelists,  and  see  how  far  its  purpose  was 
accomplished.     First,  he  aroused  general  attention  to  the  fact 


Part  II.]       DIVISIONS   OF  THE   LORD's   MINISTRY.  131 

that  the  Messiah  was  at  hand.  Second,  his  preaching  brought 
great  numbers  to  repentance.  Multitudes  from  every  part  of  the 
land  came  to  his  baptism.  But  of  these  it  is  probable  that  many 
did  not  understand  the  significance  of  the  rite,  or  truly  repent  ot 
their  sins.  Perhaps  with  comparatively  few  was  the  baptism  with 
water  a  true  preparation  for  the  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And  it  is  to  be  specially  noted  that  those  thus  coming  to  John 
to  be  baptized  were  mostly,  if  not  exclusively,  of  the  common 
people,  and  not  of  the  priests,  or  Levites,  or  members  of  the 
hierarchical  party.  Many  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  came 
to  be  spectators  of  the  rite,  but  only  with  hostile  intent;  or  if 
some  received  baptism  at  his  hands,  we  find  few  or  no  traces  of 
them  in  the  subsequent  history  (Matt,  iii  7;  Luke  vii.  29-30). 
In  the  hearts  of  those  who  sat  in  Moses'  seat,  the  spiritual 
rulers  and  guides  of  the  nation,  no  permanent  sense  of  sin 
was  awakened,  and  they  could  not  submit  to  a  baptism  of 
which  they  felt  no  need.  To  all  his  exhortations  they  had 
the  ready  and,  as  they  deemed,  sufficient  reply,  "  We  have 
Abraham  to  our  father."  Thus  John  did  not  effect  national 
repentance.  The  highest  proof  of  this  is  seen  in  the  Deputation, 
that  was  sent  him  from  Jerusalem  to  ask  him  who  he  was,  and 
by  what  authority  he  acted  (John  i.  19-27).  It  is  plain  from 
the  narrative  that  he  was  wholly  unable  to  satisfy  the  Jewish 
leaders  that  he  was  divinely  commissioned,  or  that  his  baptism 
had  any  validity.  It  followed,  of  course,  that  they  paid  no  heed 
to  his  prophetic  or  personal  testimony  to  the  Messiah. 

As  his  chief  official  act,  he  pointed  out  Jesus  in  person  to  the 
nation  represented  in  the  Deputation  that  came  to  him  from 
Jerusalem  as  the  Messiah.  He  whom  he  had  foretold  was 
come.     Henceforth  they  must  see  and  hear  Him. 

Turning  now  to  the  ministry  of  the  Lord,  let  us  consider  it 
in  its  relations  to  that  of  the  Baptist,  and  as  under  those  historic 
conditions  that  have  been  already  mentioned.  Having  been 
publicly  witnessed  to  by  the  Baptist,  His  first  work  was  to 
present  Himself  to  the  Jews  as  their  Messiah,  in  whom  the 
covenants  of  God  with  Abraham  and  David  should  find  their 
fulfillment,  and  all  the  predictions  of  the  prophets  be  accom- 
pUshed.     He  did  not,  indeed,  assert  in  so  many  words  that  He 


132  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [rait  II 

was  the  Messiah,  but  left  them  to  infer  from  His  words  and 
works  who  He  was.  They  must  now  seek  Him  out,  and  learn 
from  His  own  lips  what  were  his  Messianic  claims,  as  did  the  two 
disciples  at  Bethabara.  Of  His  Divine  Mission  He  must  give 
proof,  first  and  chiefly,  by  His  woi'ds,  which  should  show  Him 
to  be  sent  of  God,  an  inspired  teacher  and  prophet;  and  second, 
by  His  works,  which  should  show  Him  to  be  the  Power  of  God. 
All  the  scriptural  expectations  created  by  the  announcement 
of  John  were  to  be  realizjed  in  Him.  As  the  elders  of  the  peo- 
ple gathered  themselves  together  unto  Moses  (Exod.  iv.  29),  and 
co-operated  with  him  in  the  work  of  their  deliverance,  so  now 
must  the  priests  and  Levites,  and  all  who  by  God's  appointment 
held  any  office  among  the  people,  be  co-workers  with  Jesus.  In 
this  way  only  was  it  possible  that  the  promises  of  the  Covenant 
could  take  effect,  and  the  predictions  of  the  prophets  be  fulfilled. 
Thus  presenting  Himself  to  the  people,  and  especially  to  its 
ecclesiastical  rulers,  and  having  shown  by  the  evidence  of  His 
own  works  and  words,  corresponding  to  the  testimony  of  the 
Baptist,  that  He  was  the  Messiah,  He  must  await  the  action  of 
the  nation. 

The  obstacles  that  stood  in  the  way  of  His  acceptance  are 
obvious.  The  nation  was  morally  unprepared  for  Him.  While 
so  many  were  looking  for  Him,  few  were  looking  for  Him  in 
such  a  guise.  To  say  nothing  of  the  obscurity  in  which  He  had 
hitherto  lived,  and  of  His  supposed  birth  at  Nazareth,  His  pres- 
ent conduct  in  no  degree  corresponded  to  their  expectations. 
His  first  public  manifestation  of  Himself  in  the  cleansing  of  the 
temple  displeased  the  priests,  for  it  was  a  sharp  rebuke  to  them. 
Nor  did  He  make  friends  with  the  Pharisees,  who  doubtless 
believed  that,  when  the  Messiah  appeared.  He  would  first  of  all 
seek  them  out,  and  make  an  alliance  with  them;  but  they  saw 
no  such  movement  on  His  part,  and  those  who  for  a  time  might 
have  been  friendly  to  Him,  soon  turned  away.  The  common 
people  judged  Him  more  favorably.  His  wisdom  and  eloquence 
could  not  be  questioned,  nor  the  fact  that  He  wrought  miracles ; 
but  all  this  did  not  suffice.  He  might  be  a  teacher  sent  from 
God,  or  a  prophet,  but  the  Messiah  must  be  mucli  more  than 
this.     He  might  perhaps  be,  as  John  declared  himself  to  be,  a 


Part  II.]       DIVISIONS   OF   THE   LORD's   MINISTRY.  133 

forerunner  of  the  Messiah.  A  few,  mostly  or  wholly  from  the 
ranks  of  .John's  disciples,  at  once  received  Him  as  the  Messiah, 
but,  as  afterward  appeared,  with  most  imperfect  conceptions  of 
His  person  and  work;  the  people  at  large,  and  their  rulers,  dis- 
cerned Him  not.  It  is  plain,  from  the  account  of  Nicodemus 
(John  iii.  1-2),  that  the  presentation  of  Himself  at  Jerusalem, 
and  His  words  and  works  there,  had  called  forth  no  response 
from  the  ecclesiastical  leaders.  Even  now  their  incredulity  was 
shown  in  a  demand  for  a  sign,  which  He  would  not  give. 

Whatever  hostility  had  manifested  itself  at  this  His  first 
public  appearing  in  Jerusalem,  still  there  was  hope  that  it  might 
be  removed  by  greater  knowledge  of  His  character  and  work. 
The  Lord,  therefore,  still  remaining  in  the  province  of  Judsea, 
and  thus  directly  under  the  eyes  of  the  priests,  and  where  they 
might  easily  visit  Hitn,  begins  the  work  of  baptizing.  Many 
gather  around  Him,  and  receive  baptism  at  the  hands  of  His 
disciples.  But  it  does  not  appear  that  any  of  the  Pharisees,  or 
of  the  higher  and  more  influential  classes,  were  among  them, 
and  still  less  any  of  the  rulers.  After  a  summer  thus  spent, 
His  enemies  endeavoring  to  sow  dissensions  between  His  disci 
pies  and  those  of  John,  He  gives  up  His  baptismal  work,  and 
retires  into  Galilee.  Nearly  a  year  had  now  passed  since  He  had 
been  pointed  out  as  the  Messiah  to  the  nation,  and  yet  very  few 
had  received  Him  as  such  ;  and  all  who  bore  rule,  or  certainly 
most  of  them,  manifested  an  increasing  hostility.  He  had  found 
no  general,  much  less  a  national,  reception. 

After  a  few  weeks  spent  in  seclusion  in  Galilee,  Jesus  goes 
up  the  second  time  to  Jerusalem  to  a  feast,  and  heals  the  im- 
potent man  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda  (John  v.).  The  charge  is  at 
once  made  against  Him  that  He  had  broken  the  Sabbath  by  this 
work  of  healing,  and  His  defense,  based  upon  His  Divine  Son- 
ship,  so  offended  the  ruling  party  that  His  Hfe  was  in  danger. 
This  open  manifestation  of  hostility  marks  the  first  great  turning- 
point  in  the  Lord's  ministry.  It  was  now  apparent  that  the  rul- 
ers at  Jerusalem  would  neither  listen  to  His  words,  nor  be  con- 
vinced by  His  works.  So  far  from  recognizing  in  Him  the 
Messiah,  His  acts  were  violations  of  the  law,  and  His  defense 
blasphemy.      Henceforth,  they  stood  to  Him  in   an  attitude  of 


134  THE  LIFE  OF'  OUR  LORD.  [Part  II. 

avowed  hostility,  and  waited  only  for  a  sufficient  pretext  to 
arrest  Him  and  put  Him  to  death.  How  far  in  this  they  rep- 
resented the  sentiment  of  the  people  at  large,  it  is  impossible 
for  us  to  say,  but  it  appears  from  the  subsequent  histoiy,  that 
although  many  came  to  Christ's  baptism,  yet  He  had  not  at  any 
time  a  large  body  of  adherents  in  Judaea.  *  So  far  as  appears,  the 
people  there  acquiesced  in  the  decision  of  their  rulers. 

Forced  to  flee  from  Jerusalem,  the  Lord  goes  into  Galilee. 
And  now  the  second  stage  of  His  ministry  begins.  His  work 
in  Galilee  seems  to  have  had  a  twofold  purpose.  It  was  first 
directed  to  the  gathering  of  disciples,  such  as  hearing  His  words 
felt  their  truth,  and  seeing  His  works  recognized  in  them  a 
Divine  power.  To  Him,  the  true  Light,  all  who  loved  the  light 
would  come.  Thus  He  gathered  around  Him  the  most  recep- 
tive, the  most  spiritually  minded  from  every  rank  and  class, 
and  teaching  them,  as  they  were  able  to  hear,  the  mysteries  of 
His  Person  and  of  His  kingdom,  prepared  them  to  be  His  wit- 
nesses unto  the  nation.  Through  the  testimony  of  a  body  of 
faithful  disciples,  the  rulers  at  Jerusalem  might  yet  be  led  to 
hearken  to  His  words,  and  theii-  own  faith  be  quickened  by  the 
faith  of  others,  and  thus  the  nation  be  saved.  But  if  this  were 
in  vain,  and  neither  the  words  of  the  Baptist,  nor  the  teachings 
of  Jesus  Himself  and  His  works,  nor  the  testimony  of  the  dis- 
ciples, could  convince  them,  these  disciples  would  still  serve  as 
the  foundation  of  that  new  and  universal  church  which  God 
would  build  if  the  Jews  rejected  His  Son.  If,  because  of  unbe- , 
lief,  the  natural  branches  should  be  broken  off  and  the  heathen 
be  grafted  in,  the  Lord  had  those  prepared  in  that  body  of  follow- 
ers who  could  serve  Him  as  the  builders  and  rulers  of  the  new 
household  of  God. 

Thus  the  gathering  of  disciples,  while,  on  the  one  hand,  it 
looked  toward  the  acknowledgment  by  the  nation  of  Christ's 
Messianic  claims,  and  regarded  such  acknowledgment  as  still 
possible,  yet,  on  the  other,  looked  forward  to  the  hour  when  He, 
l/"  whom  the  Jewish  builders  rejected,  should  be  the  corner-stone 
of  a  church,  in  whose  blessings  Jews  and  Gentiles  should  alike 
participate.  Of  this  future  service,  the  disciples  themselves 
knew   nothing,  nor  could  they  till  Christ  had  ascended.     For 


Part  II.]       DIVISIONS   OF   THE  LORD's   MINISTRY.  135 

tfte  present,  He  would  teach  them  such  truth  as  immediately 
concerned  Himself,  His  Person,  and  His  work.  He  must  deliver 
them  from  the  false  and  narrow  notions  in  which  they  had  been 
educated  by  their  rabbis,  and,  so  far  as  they  had  ears  to  hear, 
open  to  them  the  purpose  of  God  as  revealed  in  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets. 

Into  the  details  of  the  Lord's  work  in  Galilee,  this  is  not  the 
place  to  enter.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  He  gathered  many  disci- 
ples, and  that  His  fame  spread  throughout  all  the  land.  But 
the  favor  which  was  showed  Him  in  Galilee  did  not  propitiate 
His  enemies  at  Jerusalem.  They  very  early  sent  spies  to  watch 
His  movements,  and  in  concert  with  the  Phai'isees,  who  were 
found  in  greater  or  less  numbers  in  all  the  villages,  they  organ- 
ized a  systematic  opposition  to  the  progress  of  His  work.  Every- 
thing was  done  to  poison  the  mind  of  the  people  against  Him  as 
a  transgressor  of  the  law,  and  even  as  in  alliance  with  evil 
spirits.  The  fact  that  a  large  number  believed  in  Him  as  the 
Messiah,  was  so  far  from  proving  to  the  ecclesiastical  authorities 
the  reality  of  His  Messiahship,  that  it  only  stimulated  them  to 
new  efforts  for  His  destruction.  Thus,  more  and  more,  the  hope 
that  the  nation,  as  represented  in  its  rulers,  could  be  brought  to 
receive  Him,  faded  away.  He  sent  forth  the  Twelve  as  His 
witnesses,  but  they  were  not  heard.  His  journey  to  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles  and  His  reception  at  Jerusalem,  showed  in  the  plainest 
way  that  their  hostility  was  undiminished  (John,  chs.  vii.-x.). 
It  was  apparent  to  Him  that  the  "  Kingdom  of  God  must  be 
taken  from  them  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits 
thereof,"  and  as  preparatory  to  this.  He  began  to  teach  His  dis- 
ciples of  His  approaching  death,  resurrection,  ascension,  and 
coming  again. 

The  false  conceptions  entertained  by  the  Jews  respecting  the 
person  and  work  of  the  Messiah  had  to  this  time  prevented  the 
Lord  from  publicly  assuming  this  title  and  proclaiming  Himself 
the  Son  of  David  and  rightful  King  of  Israel.  He  spoke  of 
Himself  habitually  as  the  Son  of  Man.  But,  as  it  became  evi- 
dent that  His  death  was  determined  upon,  He  will  not  permit 
the  nation  to  commit  so  great  sin  without  the  distinct  knowledge 
of   His    Messiahship.     They   shall  not  reject  Him   as  a  simple 


136  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  IT 

prophet,  or  as  a  forerunner  of  the  Messiali,  but  as  the  Messiah 
Himself.  In  the  third  or  last  stage  of  His  ministry,  therefore, 
we  shall  find  His  Messianic  claims  made  prominent,  both  in  His 
own  teachings  and  in  the  testimony  of  His  disciples,  who,  to  the 
number  of  seventy,  were  sent  two  and  two  before  Him  as  He 
journeyed  to  Jerusalem.  In  this  city  only  could  He  die,  for 
this  was  the  "the  City  of  the  Great  King,"  and  His  death  could 
not  be  by  lawless  violence,  or  in  secret,  but  must  be  in  the  most 
public  manner,  and  by  a  solemn  and  judicial  act ;  and  here  He 
nlust  announce  Himself  as  the  true  King,  the  Son  of  David,  the 
long-promised  Deliverer.  This  He  did  when  He  entered  the 
city,  fulfilling  the  prophetic  word,  "  Behold,  thy  King  cometh, 
sitting  on  an  ass's  colt."  He  accepted,  as  rightfully  belonging 
to  Him,  the  homage  of  the  multitude,  who  spread  their  garments 
and  branches  of  palm  trees  in  the  way,  and  cried,  "  Hosanna  to 
the  Son  of  David."  "  Blessed  is  the  King  of  Israel  that  cometh 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

Thus,  in  the  Lord's  public  life,  we  seem  to  find  three  stages 
distinctly  marked.  The  first  is  that  period  extending  from  the 
first  Passover  (John  ii.  TSyio  the  feast  when  the  impotent  man 
was  healed  (John  v.  1),  and  embracing  about  a  year.  It  began 
with  the  purgation  of  the  Temple,  and  ended  with  the  attempt 
of  the  Jews  to  kill  Him  because  He  made  Himself  equal  with 
God.  During  this  time,  His  labors  were  confined  mainly  to 
Judcea.  Near  the  close  of  this  period,  we  may  place  the  im- 
prisonment of  the  Baptist.  The  second  stage  is  that  period  fol- 
lowing His  return  to  Galilee  immediately  after  the  feast, 
and  embraces  the  whole  duration  of  His  ministry  there,  o^- 
about  a  year  and  six  montlis.  This  period  may  be  divided  into 
two,  of  which  the  death  of  the  Baptist  will  serve  as  the  dividing 
line.  The  third  stage  begins  with  His  final  departure  from  Gal- 
ilee, and  ends  with  His  death  at  Jerusalem,  and  embraces  five  or 
six  months.  The  peculiarities  of  these  several  stages  of  ministry 
will  be  noticed  more  in  detail  as  each  shall  come  before  us. 

If  we  put  the  beginning  of  the  Lord's  public  ministry  at  the 
Passover  when  He  cleansed  the  temple  (John  ii.  14),  we  have, 
between  His  baptism  and  this  Passover,  a  period  of  about  three 
months,  in  which  the  following  events  occurred:  the  baptism; 


Part    II. ]  FROM   THE   BAPTISM    OF   JESUS.  .-^   137  J 

/  the  temptation ;  John's  witness  to  the  Deputation  ;  the  departure 
/  of  Jesus  with  some  disciples  to  Cana;  His  first  miracle;  He  goes 
down  to  Capernaum;  He  goes  up  to  Jerusalem  to  the  feast. 
I  This  period  may  be  regarded  as  preparatory  to  His  manifestations 
V  of  Himself  at  Jerusalem. 

FROM  THE  BAPTISM  OF  JESUS  TO  THE  FIRST  PASSOVER  OF  HIS 
MINISTRY ;  OR  FROM  JANUARY  TO  APRIL,  780,  27  A.  D. 

In  the  fifteenth  yeai-  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius  Caesar,  John  Luke  iii.  1-18. 
enters  upon  his  worlc  of  preaching  and  baptizing.     The  peo-  Matt.  iii.  1-17. 
pie  throng  to  him  from  all  parts  of  the  land,  whom  he  bap-  Makk  i.  4-11. 
tizes,  and  to  whom  he  bears  witness  of  the  coming  Messiah. 
After  his  ministry  had  continued  several  months,  Jesus  comes  John  i.  33-34. 
from  Nazareth  to  the  Jordan,  and  is  baptized,  and  immedi-  Luke  iii.  21-22. 
ately  the  Holy  Spirit  descends  upon  Him. 

The  chronological  questions  connected  with  this  date  have 
been  already  discussed  in  the  essay  upon  the  time  of  the  Lord's 
baptism.  The  only  points  that  now  demand  our  attention  are 
those  relating  to  the  tetrarchy  of  Lysanias  and  to  the  respective 
ofEces  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas. 

lu  connection  with  Lysanias  and  the  tetrarchy  of  Abilene,  we 
meet  with  some  historical  difficulties.  It  was  formerly  said  by  some 
critics  that  Luke  had  fallen  into  error,  and  referred  to  a  Lysanias, 
who,  according  to  Josephus,  had  long  before  died,  as  contemporary 
with  Pilate  and  Antipas  and  Philip.  The  accuracy  of  the  Evangel- 
ist is  now  generally  admitted, '  but  a  careful  comparison  of  his  state- 
ments with  those  of  Josephus  will  show  us  why  the  name  of  a  ruler 
is  mentioned  who  did  not  rule  in  Palestine,  or  stand  in  any  appar- 
ent connection  with  the  Gospel  history. 

Let  us  sum  up  what  we  know  of  the  elder  Lysanias  and  his  • 
territories.  He  was  the  son  of  a  Ptolemy,  king  of  Chalchis  or 
Chalcis,  a  city  lying  in  Coelesyria,  northwest  of  Damascus,  and  iden- 
tified by  Robinson  with  the  present  Anjar,  where  considerable 
ruins  still  exist  (Josephus,  War,  i.  13.  1).  Of  the  extent  of  his  king- 
dom or  the  names  of  its  provinces  we  have  little  knowledge.  Lich- 
tenstein  (132)  infers  from  a  comparison  of  the  statements  of  Josephus 
that,  besides  Chalcis,  the  kingdom  embraced  Trachonitis,  Itursea,  and 
Batancea  (Wies.,  Beitrage,  199  ff.).  This  Lysanias  succeeded  to  his 
father's  throne,  714,  was  put  to  death  by  Antony  at  the  instigation  of 
Cleopatra  about  720,  and  a  part  of  his  dominions  given  to  her 
(Joseph.,  Antiq.,  xv.  4.  1).     It  is  not  clear  what  was  done  by  Antony 

1  See  Meyer  in  loco.      Schflrer,  I.  ii.  3:58. 


138  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LOP.D.  J^Pait  li. 

with  the  residue,  but  after  his  death  it  may  have  been  restored  by  the 
Romans  to  the  children  of  Lysanias,  since  it  is  said  by  Josephus 
(Antiq.,  xv.  10.  1)  that  one  Zenodorus, — a  relative  and  ruling 
over  Trachonitis  —  farmed  what  was  called  "the  house  —  oIkLo.  —  of 
Lysanias "  ;  but  whether  in  the  interests  of  that  family  or  of  tlie 
Romans,  is  not  said.  It  seems  clear  that  in  this  grant  to  Zenodorus 
Abila  and  its  territory  was  not  included ;  although,  as  lying  between 
Chalcis  and  Damascus,  it  formerly  belonged  to  the  kingdom  of 
Lysanias.  (See  Joseph.,  Antiq.,  xiii.  16.  3).  Did  Abila,  after  Antony's 
death,  come  under  Herod's  rule  ?  This  is  said  by  Zumpt  (298,  note), 
who  distinguishes  between  the  city  Abila  and  the  province  Abilene. 
But  if  so,  it  was  not  given  by  Herod  to  his  sons;  the  view  of  others 
is  more  probable,  that  it  was  given  again  to  the  family  of  Lysanias. 

The  original  dominions  of  Herod  were  much  enlarged  I)y  gradual 
additions.  From  Zenodorus  Augustus  took  away  his  princijiality  of 
Trachonitis,  and  gave  it  to  Herod ;  and  after  the  death  of  Zenodorus 
he  gave  to  him  the  region  between  Trachonitis  and  Galilee,  and 
Paneas  and  the  country  around.  (Joseph.,  Antiq.,  xv.  10.  3).  In 
the  division  of  Herod's  territories  among  his  sons  (Joseph,,  Antiq., 
xvii.  8.  1),  to  Philip  was  given  Gaulanitis,  Trachonitis,  and  Paneas; 
but  this  tetrarchy  was  not  co-extensive  with  the  kingdom  of  the 
earlier  Lysanias;  the  northern  part  of  the  latter  must  either  have 
been  under  the  immediate  rule  of  the  Romans,  or  under  some 
tributary  prince. 

The  existence  of  a  tetrarchy  under  a  Lysanias  is  several  times  men- 
tioned by  Josephus  (Antiq.,  xviii.  6.  10;  xix.  5.  1).  Tlie  emperor 
Caligula,  on  liis  accession  in  790,  gave  to  Agrippa  I.,  grandson  of 
Herod  the  Great,  the  tetrarchy  of  Philij)  and  the  tetrarchy  of  Lysanias, 
the  last  probably  now  having  no  prince.  When  Claudius  four  years 
later  became  emperor,  he  confirmed  the  gift,  and  added  to  his 
territories  all  that  his  grandfather  Herod  had  possessed  —  Judtea 
and  Samaria;  and  out  of  his  own  territories  he  gave  him  Abila  of 
Lysanias  and  all  that  lay  at  Mt.  Libanus.  To  the  same  efi'ect 
Josephus  says  (War,  ii.  11.  5)  that  Claudius  gave  Agrippa  the  whole 
of  his  paternal  dominions,  and  the  district  given  by  Augustus  to 
Herod,  Trachonitis  and  Auranitis,  with  the  addition  of  another 
principality  styled  the  kingdom  of  Lysanias.  On  his  brother  Herod 
he  bestowed  the  kingdom  of  Chalcis. 

The  question  before  us  is,  does  Josephus  here  refer  to  the  kingdom 
of  the  elder  Lysanias  who  died  about  720,  some  twenty  years  before,  or 
to  a  principality  then  existing,  and  under  the  rule  of  a  Lysanias  ? 
There  can  hardly  be  a  doubt  that  the  last  view  is  the  true  one.     Of 


Part  II.]  THE   TETRARCHY   OF   LYSANIAS.  139 

this  Lysauias  and  his  priucipality  we  have  no  direct  information.  It 
may  have  been  that  Abila  with  its  territory,  and  perhaps  also  Chalcis, 
had  remained  under  the  family  of  Lysanias,  or  been  restored  to  it  after 
Antony's  death ;  if  it  had  then  passed  into  the  hands  of  Herod,  it  had 
been  given  up,  after  his  death,  to  a  Lysanias,  probably  a  descendant 
of  the  earlier  king.  There  is  no  good  ground  for  identifying  the 
original  heritage  of  Lysanias  with  the  tetrarchy  spoken  of  by 
Josephus.  The  objection  that  historians  make  no  mention  of  anj 
Lysanias  but  the  first,  assumes  the  theory  to  be  proved;  and  the 
other  assumption,  that  Abilene,  having  once  belonged  to  the  king- 
dom of  Lysanias,  should  ever  after  be  called  "Abilene  of  Lysanias," 
is  most  improbable,  especially  if  we  take  it  into  account  how  rapidly 
those  little  kingdoms  and  principalities  arose  and  passed  away. 
Besides,  why  should  Josephus  speak  of  the  "tetrarchy"  of  Lysanias 
if  he  referred  to  the  older  kingdom  ? 

After  the  death  of  Agrippa  (797)  his  dominion  was  reduced  to  a 
Roman  province,  and  annexed  to  Syria  (Antiq.,  xix.  9.  2),  but  in  811 
Claudius  gave  to  his  son,  Agrippa  11. ,  the  tetrarchy  of  Philip,  with 
Abila,  which  had  been  in  the  tetrarchy  of  Lysauias.  (Antiq.,  xx.  7.  1.) 
Thus  for  the  second  time  this  tetrarchy  became  a  part  of  the  Jewish 
territory;  of  its  subsequent  history  nothing  certain  is  known. 

We  find,  thus,  good  ground  to  believe  that  at  the  time  of  which 
Luke  speaks  —  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  —  there  was  a  princi- 
pality of  Abilene  of  which  a  Lysanias  was  prince,  and  that  the  Evan- 
gelist, so  far  from  being  in  error,  shows  himself  well  informed  as  to 
the  political  divisions  of  that  earlier  period.  (In  this  agree,  with 
some  slight  differences,  such  high  historical  authorities  as  Winer, 
Ewald,  Zumpt,  Wieseler,  Schiirer;  of  the  commentators  and  harmon- 
ists, Meyer,  Keil,  Bleek,  Lewin,  Greswell,  Godet;  contra,  Keim,  Sevin. 

Abila,  from  which  the  province  of  Abilene  took  its  own  name,  is 
identified  in  Baedeker  (490)  with  the  village  of  Suk  Wady  Barada,  on 
the  river  Barada,  a  few  miles  northwest  of  Damascus.  The  name  is 
popularly  derived  from  Abel,  and  tradition  points  out  a  hill  where  he 
was  slain  by  Cain.  This  Abila  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  Abila 
of  the  Decapolis,  southeast  of  the  sea  of  Galilee.  (For  the  last,  see 
Qt.  St.,  July,  1889.) 

We  can  now  see  clearly  the  reason  why  Luke  should  have  men- 
tioned the  fact,  having  apparently  so  little  connection  with  Gospel 
history,  that  at  the  time  when  the  Baptist  appeared,  this  tetrarchy 
was  under  the  rule  of  Lysanias.  It  was  an  allusion  to  a  former  well- 
known  political  division  tliat  had  now  ceased  to  exist,  and  was  to  his 
readers  as  distinct  a  mark  of  time  as  his  mention  of  tlie  tetrarchy  of 


140  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part   11. 

Autii)as  or  of  Philip.  This  statement  respecting  Lysanias  shows, 
when  carefully  examined,  the  accuracy  of  the  Evangelist's  infor- 
mation of  the  political  history  of  his  times,  and  should  teach  us  to 
rely  upon  it  even  when  unconfirmed  by  contemporaneous  writers.' 

Having  mentioned  the  civil  rulers,  Luke  proceeds  to  mention  the 
ecclesiastical.  "Annas  and  Caiaphas  were  the  high-priests."  "In 
the  high-priesthood  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas,"  R.  V. ;'  (see  Acts  iv.  6, 
"Annas  the  high  priest,  and  Caiaphas.")  Let  us,  therefore,  con- 
sider the  personal  and  official  relations  of  these  twa  men  to  each 
other. 

Annas  was  made  high-priest  by  Quirinius,  the  Roman  governor  of 
Syria,  in  760,  but  was  deposed  by  Gratus  in  767  or  768.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded in  office  by  Ismael,  by  his  own  son  Eleazar,  by  Simon,  and 
then  by  his  son  in-law,  Joseph  Caiaphas.  (John  xviii.  13.)'  The 
■  latter  was  appointed  778,  and  held  the  office  till  790.  Schiirer  (in 
Riehm)  thinks  him  to  have  been  appointed  much  earlier,  in  77L 
Afterward,  several  other  sous  of  Annas  became  high-priests,  and  one 
of  them,  named  Anauus,  was  in  power  when  James,  brother  of  the 
Lord,  was  slain.* 

It  thus  appears  that,  although  Annas  had  been  high-priest,  yet 
Caiaphas  was  actually  such  when  the  Baptist  appeared,  and  that 
he  continued  in  office  during  all  the  public  life  of  Christ.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Mosaic  institutions  there  could  be  but  one  high-priest  at  a 
time.  The  office  was  hereditary,  and  was  held  for  life.  As  was  to 
be  expected  after  the  Jews  had  fallen  under  bondage  to  the  heathen 
nations,  the  high-priests,  though  nominally  independent,  became 
tools  in  the  hands  of  their  masters,  and  this  high  dignity  was  trans- 
ferred from  one  to  another,  both  by  Herod,  who  appointed  seven,  and 
by  the  Roman  governors  afterwards,  as  their  political  interests  de- 
manded. Hence,  there  were  often  living  at  the  same  time  a  number 
who  had  filled  this  office,  and  been  deposed.  Probably  other  ex-high- 
priests  besides  Annas  were  now  living,  who  were  upon  that  ground, 
equally  well  entitled  as  himself  to  the  name.  That  he  should  be  distinct- 
ively so  called  in  the  passage  before  us,  does  not  then  seem  sufficiently 
explained  by  the  fact  that  he  had  been  high-priest  some  years  before. 


1  See,  in  reference  to  this  point,  Wieseler,  174;  Lichtenstein,  130;  Winer,  i.  7; 
Robinson,  iii.  48i  ;  that  Lnke  mentions  this  tetrarchy  becanso  it  had  once  been  a  part  of 
the  holy  land,  or  to  show  "the  political  dissolution  into  which  the  theocracy  had 
fallen,"  —  so  Godet,  Lewin,  is  not  apparent. 

*  The  reading,  in\  apxiepiai^  'Awa  KoX  Kaid<i>a,  is  now  generally  accepted.  Tisch., 
W.  and  H. 

*  Matt.  xxvi.  3;  John  xi.  40. 

*  Euseb.  ii.  23.    For  list  of  hgh-pnests,  see  Schiirer  ii.  1.  197- 


Part   II.]  ANNAS   AND   CAIAPHAS.  141 

and  that  he  still  retained  the  title  among  the  people  at  large.  Some 
ascribe  the  prominence  given  him  to  the  fact  that  he  stood  high  in 
popular  estimation,  and  still  exerted  great  influence;  or  that,  as 
father-in-law  of  Caiaphas,  lie  continued  to  direct  public  matters. 
Against  this  it  may  be  said  that  Luke  would  scarcely  have  mentioned 
him  in  connection  with  the  emperor,  the  governor,  the  tetrarchs,  and 
the  high-priest,  unless  he  also  was  filling  some  high  official  i)osition. 
If,  then,  we  conclude  that  Annas  is  not  mentioned  merely  as  an 
influential  private  person  who  had  once  been  high-priest,  what  office 
did  he  fill?  The  word  apxiepei^s,  higli-priest,  does  not  decide  it,  as  it 
is  itself  of  indefinite  signification.  It  is  applied  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  three  classes  of  persons :  first  and  properly,  to  the  high-priest 
in  office;  second,  to  all  who  had  filled  the  office;  third,  to  their  fami- 
lies,"  the  kindred  of  the  high-priest  "  (Acts  iv.  6).  As  to  its  use  in 
Josephus,  see  Schiirer,  i.  204.  This  writer,  in  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1873, 
classifies  opinions  under  two  heads,  and  discusses  the  questions, 
what  political  position  had  the  high- priest  under  Roman  rule,  and 
what  the  position  of  those  who  had  been  high-priests.  As  Annas 
was  not  the  high-priest  in  office,  did  he  fulfill  any  of  its  functions  ? 
Browne  (71,  note)  thinks  there  may  have  been  an  interval  of  some 
months  between  the  deposal  of  Simon  and  the  elevation  of  Caia- 
phas, when  Annas  may  have  acted  as  high-priest.  Hug  (followed 
by  Friedlieb)'  supposes  both  Annas  and  Caiaphas  to  have  held 
office  at  the  same  time,  and  to  have  officiated  as  high-priests  in 
turn,  one  at  one  feast,  and  the  other  at  the  next;  or,  more  prob- 
ably, one  during  one  year,  and  the  ether  during  the  next.  For 
this  supposition  there  is  no  good  ground,  and  it  implies  a  tenure 
of  office  inconsistent  with  facts.''  Others,  therefore,  make  Annas 
to  have  been  tlie  JVui^i,  or  president  of  the  Sanhedrin;  others,  as 
Schiirer,  affirm,  that  this  office  was  always  filled  by  the  high-priest; 
others  make  him  the  vice-j^resident,  the  office  of  president  belonging 
to  the  high-priest ;  others  still  suppose  that  he  was  the  sagan  or  vicarius 
of  the  high-priest;  "in  his  absence  to  oversee,  or  in  his  presence  to 
assist  in  the  oversight  of  the  affairs  of  the  temple  and  the  service  of 
the  priests."^  "  The  vicar  of  the  high-priest,  the  next  in  dignity  to 
him,  and  the  vice-president  of  the  Sanhedrin."*  But  the  existence 
of  such  a  deputy  is  doubtful  f  and  if  Annas  was  the  vicar  of  Caia- 
phas, why  is  he  mentioned  before  him?  Wieseler  says  that  Annas  was 
the  head  —  Hasi  —  of  the  Sanhedrin,  and  Caiaphas  of    the   temple 


1  Archaologie,  73.    For  like  earlier  opinions,  see  Nebe,  Leidensgeschichte,  205. 

2  Josephus,  Antiq.,  xviii.  3.  2. 

3  Lightfoot,  ix.  38.  *  Greswell,  iii.  200.  ^  Winer,  i.  507, 


142  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  II. 

priests  (Beitriige,  205) ;  Casi^ari,  that  Annas  having  been  liigh-priest 
and  Nasi,  continued  to  fill  the  latter  office.  Some,  finally,  as  Alford, 
referring  to  the  fact  that  the  Law  directed  the  office  to  be  held  during 
life,  suppose  that  Luke  speaks  of  Annas  as  the  lawful  high-priest, 
one  who,  having  held  it,  could  not  be  legally  deposed.  Meyer 
thinks  the  Evangelist  to  have  been  ignorant  who  was  the  real  high- 
priest,  and  that  therefore  he  erroneously  ascribes  this  title  to  Annas. 
Schiirer  (ii.  1)  thinks  that  there  is  some  inaccuracy  in  the  Evangelist's 
statements. 

It  seems  from  the  manner  in  which  Annas  is  mentioned,  not  only 
by  Luke  but  by  John,  that  he  did  in  fact  hold  some  high  official 
position,  and  this  probably  in  connection  with  the  Sanhedrin,  perhaps 
as  occasional  president  (so  Keil).  It  is  said  by  Edersheim,  i.  264 : 
"Deprived  of  the  Pontificate,  he  still  continued  to  preside  over  the 
Sanhedrin."  This  point  will  be  further  examined  when  we  con- 
sider the  part  he  took  in  the  trial  of  the  Lord.  That,  in  times  of 
such  general  confusion,  when  the  laws  of  Moses  respecting  the  high- 
priesthood  were  very  little  regarded,  and  offices  became  important 
according  to  the  political  capacity  of  those  that  filled  them,  the  exact 
relations  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas  to  each  other  can  be  determined,  is 
not  to  be  expected.  A  like  difficulty  seems  to  exist  in  explaining  the 
relations  of  Ananus  aLd  Jesus,  mentioned  by  Josephus  (War,  iv.  3.  9). 

"We  may,  at  this  point,  properly  consider  the  political  and  other 
changes  from  the  Lord's  Ijirth  to  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  (750 
to  780)  a  period  of  about  thirty  years.  This  period  was  not  so  full  of 
political  excitement  as  that  jJi'eceding  it  under  Herod's  rule,  yet  was 
by  no  means  uneventful. 

Herod  the  Great  left  four  sons  who  are  mentioned  by  the  Evan- 
gelists: Archelaus  and  Antipas,  sons  of  Malthace ;  Philip  (the  Tetrarch, 
Luke  iii.  1),  sou  of  Cleopatra;  and  Herod  (called  Philij),  Matt. 
xiv.  3),  son  of  Mariamne,  the  daughter  of  the  high-priest  Simon. 
(Some  disputed  points  in  regard  to  this  Herod  will  be  later  cc;!!- 
sidered.  Joseph.,  War,  i.  28.  4.)  Herod,  by  his  last  will,  divided  his 
dominions  among  the  three  —  Archelaus,  Antipas,  and  Philip  —  sub- 
ject, however,  to  the  approval  of  Augustus.  (Joseph.,  Antiq.,  xvii.  8. 
1.)  Augustus  confirmed  it  in  sul^stance,  but  gave  to  Archelaus  only 
one-half  of  his  father's  dominions  —  Idumtta,  Judjiea,  Samaria  —  with 
the  title  of  I]thnarch;  and  the  other  half  he  divided  between  Antipas 
and  Philip,  giving  to  the  former  Galilee  and  Persea,  and  to  tlie  lat- 
ter Batanoea,  Auranitis,  Trachonitis,  and  a  part  of  the  domains  of 
Zenodorus.     (Antiq.,  xvii.  11.4.) 


Political  Divisions  of  Palestink  During  the  Lord's  Ministry. 


Part   11.]  POLITICAL   CHANGES.  143 

Archelaus,  who  from  the  first  was  hated  by  the  Jews,  and  who 
treated  them  with  great  cruelty,  was  in  the  tenth  year  of  his  reign 
accused  by  them  before  the  Emperor,  who  deposed  him  and  banished 
him  to  Gaul.  Judaea  was  then  — ■  760  —  united  to  Syria,  and  put 
under  the  authority  of  the  Syrian  governor,  but  under  the  more 
immediate  rule  of  a  procurator  sent  from  Rome.  (Joseph.,  War,  ii. 
8.  1.)  Morrison,  121,  says  that  "Augustus  decided  to  form  the  terri- 
tories of  Archelaus  into  an  independent  province  of  the  second  rank." 

Thus  Judaea  became  a  Roman  province  in  the  Lord's  early  youth, 
and  continued  such  till  after  His  death.  Five  procurators  followed 
one  another,  the  last  being  Pontius  Pilate  (779-789),  their  usual 
residence  being  at  Caesarea,  not  in  Jerusalem.  When  at  Jerusalem  at 
the  feasts,  they  occupied  the  palace  of  Herod  (Schiirer  and  many,  but 
others,  the  tower  of  Antonia).  Under  the  first  governor  of  Syria  after 
Judaea  was  annexed  to  it,  Cyrenius,  took  place  the  taxing  mentioned  in 
Acts  V.  37,  (Antiq. ,  xvii.  1.  11),  when  Judas,  the  Galilaean  or  Gaulonite, 
made  an  insurrection  which  terminated  in  his  defeat  and  death,  760. 
This  insurrection  was  probably  confined  to  Judaea,  since  the  taxing 
(Acts  V.  37)  took  effect  there  only,  and  not  in  Galilee  then  under  the 
rule  of  Antipas.  After  the  suppression  of  this  insurrection,  there 
seems  to  have  been  comparative  peace  in  Judaea  until  the  administra- 
tion of  Pilate,  of  which  we  shall  speak  later. 

Herod  Antipas  (Herod  Antipas  is  never  called  Antipas  in  the 
Gospels,  only  Herod;  Philip  is  called  Philip  only)  began  to  reign 
over  Galilee  and  Peraea  in  750,  and  reigned  till  he  was  deposed  in  792. 
Under  his  administration,  Galilee  and  Peraea  were  in  comparative 
quiet.  Like  his  father,  he  was  fond  of  building.  He  made  Seppho- 
ris,  lying  only  four  or  five  miles  from  Nazareth,  the  metropolis  of  the 
country,  and  fortified  it.  He  also  built  anew  Livias  or  Julias,  the 
old  Betharamtha,  on  the  north  end  of  the  Dead  Sea;  and  later,  he 
built  Tiberias  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  (Joseph.,  Antiq.,  xxiii.  2.  1 ;  Life, 
vii.  81 ;  War,  i.  3.  4.) 

Herod  Philip  is  generally  regarded  as  the  best  of  the  Herods,  and 
ruled  peacefully  till  his  death,  787.  He  built  Caesarea  Philippi 
(Matt.  xvi.  13),  and  also  enlarged  the  village  Bethsaida  on  the  east 
bank  of  the  lake.  Here  he  built  a  mausoleum,  in  which  he  was 
buried.  The  larger  part  of  the  people  of  his  tetrai'chy  were  heathen 
of  various  races. 

As  in  Palestine  there  was  but  little  change  after  Judaea  became  a 
Roman  province,  so  in  the  Roman  Empire  at  large  there  was  nothing 
aflfecting  Jewish  afl'airs;  the  death  of  Augustus,  767,  and  the  succes- 
sion of  Tiberius  making  no  change  in  the  general  political  adminis- 
tration. 


144  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORfi.  [Part  11. 

But  if  the  times  after  the  suppression  of  the  insurrectiou  of  Judas 
were  comparatively  uneventful,  the  minds  of  the  Jews  were  by  no 
means  at  rest.  The  death  of  Judas  and  dispersion  of  his  followers 
did  by  no  means  extinguish  the  theocratic  idea  which  controlled 
them.  More  and  more  it  became  the  popular  belief,  that,  as  the  cov- 
enant people  of  God,  their  duty  to  their  Divine  King  forbade  sub- 
.nission  to  the  Roman  Emperor.  As  His  elect,  they  might  confi- 
dently Count  on  His  help  in  a  contest  with  Rome,  and  they  might 
hopefully  look  for  the  fulfillment  of  His  promise  to  send  the  Messiah, 
■svho  would  be  their  leader.  This  smouldering  fire  slowly  extended, 
becoming  inore  and  more  intensCj  but  did  not  burst  into  a  flame  till 
a  few  years  after  the  death  of  the  Lord.  An  observant  eye  could, 
however,  see  that  the  theocratic  idea  was  pervading  more  and  more 
the  masses  of  the  people,  and  that  a  struggle  with  Roman  domination 
must  soon  come,  a  struggle  unto  death. 

But  besides  the  more  advanced  who  were  watching  to  cast  off  the 
Roman  yoke  at  the  first  moment,  the  conception  of  the  Theocracy, 
the  making  the  will  of  God  supreme,  undoubtedly  strengthened  itself 
among  the  great  party  of  the  Pharisees.  This  was  seen  in  the  impor- 
tance attached  to  the  observance  of  the  law,  even  in  its  minutest 
details.  As  the  expression  of  the  Divine  will,  it  must  be  obeyed, 
even  to  the  loss  of  property  and  life.  Of  this  pxmctilious  observance 
there  are  many  exam2'>lcs  in  the  Evangelists,  but  the  most  striking 
illustration  is  seen  in  the  refusal  for  a  time  of  the  Jewish  warriors  to 
fight  on  the  Sabbath,  even  in  self-defense.     (Joseph.,  Antiq.,  xii.  6.  2.) 

But,  curiously  enough,  with  many  of  the  Pharisees,  on  the  other 
hand,  this  high  regard  for  the  law  made  them  indifferent  to  their 
political  bondage.  The  observance  of  the  law,  they  said,  was  the  one 
great  thing,  and  this  observance  being  possible  under  the  Roman 
yoke,  there  was  no  sufficient  ground  for  rebelling. 

The  Herodians,  who  supported  the  pretensions  of  the  Herods  to 
reign,  were  few  in  number,  but  of  considerable  political  importance. 
It  is  said  by  Tertullian,  (Praescrip.  45,)  that  they  claimed  Herod  to  be 
the  Christ:   Christum  Herodem  esse  dixenint. 

There  was  also  a  more  important  body,  both  in  numbers,  in  rank, 
and  in  wealth,  embracing  the  chief  priests  and  their  families,  and 
many  members  of  the  Sanhedrin,  who,  for  the  most  part,  cared  little 
for  the  Pharisaic  traditions;  and  if  they  believed  in  any  special  cove- 
nant relation  of  the  Jews  to  God,  were  little  influenced  by  any 
Messianic  hopes.  These,  for  the  most  part,  found  it  for  their  ])('r- 
sonal  advantage  to  uphold  the  Roman  authority,  and  discountenanced 
anything  that  tended  to  cause  an  insurrection  (John  xi.  47,  ff.).     Ta 


Part   A.]  POLITICAL  CHANGES.  145 

these  may  be  added  the  very  few  who,  seeing  in  their  subjection  to 
Rome  a  just  punishment  of  the  national  sins,  refused  to  take  into  their 
own  liands  the  work  of  liberation,  but  waited  patiently  for  the  liber- 
ating hand  of  God. 

Such,  in  brief,  being  the  political  and  religious  condition  of  the 
land,  and  so  great  the  divisions  of  sentiment  among  the  people,  we 
see  that  there  was  much  when  the  Lord  began  His  ministry  to  agi- 
tate and  excite  the  popular  mind.  It  was  no  period  of  mental  stag- 
nation, or  of  religious  repose.  Doubtless,  all  thoughtful  men  saw 
that  the  political  quiet  then  existing  could  not  long  continue.  The 
antagonisms  of  every  kind  were  every  day  becoming  more  plain, 
more  pronounced.  And  what  shall  we  say  of  the  Lord  during  these 
years?  Was  He  not  from  His  youth  up  a  careful  and  deeply  inter- 
ested observer  of  these  tendencies?  Did  He  not  watch  all  that 
passed,  and  compare  events  with  the  revealed  purpose  of  God ;  and 
especially  with  the  prophecies  respecting  the  Messiah  and  His  king- 
dom? We  cannot  doubt  this.  He  was  well  acquainted  with  the  cur- 
rent Messianic  conceptions  and  the  jDopular  expectations,  and  saw 
clearly  how  deeply  rooted  was  the  hatred  of  the  Roman  yoke;  nor 
was  the  worthlessness  of  the  Herods  hidden  from  Him.  Sepphoris, 
the  chief  city  of  Galilee,  was  close  by  Nazareth ;  and  even  if  He 
never  entered  it,  which  is  scarcely  jiossible,  He  must  have  known  what 
Avas  going  on  at  the  court  of  Herod  Antipas — the  semi-heathenish 
vices  and  luxury  that  there  prevailed.  And  He  must  have  seen,  in 
His  yearly  visits  to  the  feast,  how  the  temple  of  God  was  defiled  by 
the  covetousness  and  unholiness  of  many  of  the  priests ;  and  have  dis- 
cerned the  hollowness  of  much  of  the  current  Pharisaic  piety.  Yet 
here  and  there  He  would  discern  not  a  few  meek  and  poor  in  spirit, 
who  were  hungering  and  thirsting  after  righteousness,  fearing  God, 
and  striving  to  walk  in  all  His  commandments  and  ordinances 
blameless. 

The  year  during  which  John  began  his  ministry  was  prob- 
ably a  Sabbatic  year  (Ex.  xxiii.  11.  According  to  Wieseler, 
3yn.,  204,  such  a  year  was  that  from  Tisri  779  to  Tisri  780. 
Lewin,  60,  reckons  from  Nisan  to  Nisan,  but  most  agree  with 
Wieseler.  So  Eders.,  McClellan.  See  Hamburger,  i.  866.  Gres- 
well,  ii.  235,  makes  780-781  a  Sabbatic  year.  He  admits,  how- 
ever, that  the  received  principles  of  the  modern  Jewish 
reckoning  would  require  him  to  place  it  a  year  earlier.)  If  this 
year  was  then  observed  by  the  Jews  according  to  its  original 
intent,  it  was  a  most  appropriate  time  for  the  Baptist  to  begin 
7 


146  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  11. 

his  labors,  the  people  having  no  burdensome  agricultural  tasks 
to  occupy  them,  and  being  thus  at  liberty  to  attend  upon  his 
instructions.'  It  is  said  by  Edersheim  [The  Temple,  160),  that 
"the  Sabbatic  year  was  strictly  observed  by  the  Jews  in  the 
Lord's  day." 

It  is  not  improbable  that  John  may  have  begun  his  labors 
as  a  preacher  of  the  kingdom  some  time  before  he  began  to 
baptize.  Some  instruction  as  to  the  nature  of  the  rite,  and  some 
exhortation  to  convince  of  its  necessity,  would  naturally  precede 
its  administration.  It  is  said  by  Pressense  that  the  Baptist  came 
forth  from  the  desert  already  attended  by  a  band  of  hearers.'* 
His  preaching  need  not  have  been  confined  to  the  banks  of  the 
Jordan,  but  may  have  begun  in  the  wilderness,  nor  after  he 
began  to  baptize,  did  he  remain  in  one  place  only  (Luke  iii.  3). 
From'  the  expression  in  Mark  i.  4,  "John  did  baptize  in  the 
wilderness,"  some  have  inferred  that  he  baptized  before  he 
came  to  the  Jordan.  But  the  Joi'dan  was  included  in  the  well 
known  designation  "  the  wilderness."  This  desert,  called  in  Matt, 
iii.  1  "the  wilderness  of  Judaea,"  and  which  is  mentioned  in 
Judges  i.  1 6,  seems  to  have  comprised  all  the  region  between  the 
mountains  of  Judasa  on  the  one  side  and  the  Dead  Sea  and 
the  lower  parts  of  the  Jordan  on  the  other.  According  to 
some,  this  wilderness  of  Judfea  stretched  along  on  the  west  side 
of  the  Jordan  from  the  end  of  the  Dead  Sea  to  Scythopolis. 

The  place  where  John  baptized  was  Bethabara,  or  Bethany,  on  the 
east  side  of  Jordan  (John  i.  28).  Two  questions  here  arise:  Where 
was  Bethabara  ?  Was  Jesus  baptized  there  ?  But,  first,  we  must 
inquire  as  to  the  text.  It  is  generally  admitted  that  the  most  ancient 
reading  was  Bethany,  and  that  Bethabara  found  its  way  into  the 
text  through  Origen,  who  was  told  that  there  was  a  Bethabara  on  the 
Jordan,  but  no  Bethany.  It  has  been  suggested  tliat  the  Bethabara 
meant  by  Origen  might  have  been  the  Betli-barah  in  Judges  (vii.  24) ; 
and  some  suppose  that  at  diilerent  times  the  same  place  may  have 
had  both  names,  or  that  one  was  the  name  of  a  district,  and  the 
other  of  the  village  or  ferry." 

1  Ewald,  Alterthumer,  414.  As  to  the  refusal  of  the  Jews  to  fight  on  Sabbatic  years, 
see  Joseph.,  Antiq.,  siii.  8.  1.  Caesar  exempted  them  from  tribute  on  the  seventh  year. 
Joseph.,  Antiq.,  xiv.  10.  6.    Sec  Hamburger,  i.  886. 

*  Accepting  Bethany,  are  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.  R.  V. ;  contra,  Stanley,  304,  note.  BTjflajSapo 
"house  of  crossing,"  "ferry  house;  Brjeana  "house  of  misery."  See  T.  G.  Lex., 
sub  voce.  But,  according  to  some,  domus  navis  or  domm  transitus  —  "a  house  of  a 
ship  "  or  "  of  passage." 


Part  11.]  PLACE   OF   THE   LORD'S   BAPTISM.  147 

Assuming  that  Bethany  is  the  right  reading,  where  was  it  ?  That 
the  village  of  that  name  near  Jerusalem  is  not  meant,  needs  not  be 
said ;  and  there  is  no  place  of  that  name  on  the  Jordan,  east  or  west. 
In  the  absence  of  any  mention  of  such  a  village,  efforts  have  been 
made  to  find  it  in  the  province  of  Batana;a,  on  the  east  of  Jordan.  But 
some  say  that  the  province  itself  is  meant.  This  province  is  mentioned 
by  Josephus  (Antiq.,  xviii.  4.  6;  War,  ii.  6.  3)  as  a  part  of  Herod 
Philip's  dominions.  But  where  was  Batanaea  ?  Raumer  (405),  sup- 
porting himself  on  the  statement  of  Josephus  (War,  iii.  3.  5)  that 
Gamalitis  and  Gaulanitis  and  Batanaea  and  Trachouitis  l)elonged  to 
Judaea,  argues  that  there  was  a  Judtea  beyond  Jordan  (Josh.  xix.  34: 
"Judah  at  Jordan  toward  the  sunrising"),  and  that  this  extended 
from  the  source  of  the  Jordan  down  to  the  middle  or  lower  end  of 
Galilee  (see  his  majj).  Caspari  (89),  citing  Raumer,  accepts  his 
reasoning,  and  finds  a  Judaea  east  of  the  Jordan  within  the  limits  of 
the  ancient  Gaulanitis,  the  modern  Jaulan;  and  here,  he  says,  we  are 
to  look  for  Bethany,  the  place  of  John's  baptism.  (See  Conder,  in 
Qt.  St.,  1877,  284).  It  was,  according  to  him,  in  the  large  plain  of  El 
Batihah,  on  the  northeastern  side  of  the  lake,  the  site  now  known  as 
Et  Tell,  where  Robinson  and  others  place  Bethsaida  Julias.  It  was 
this  "Judaea  beyond  Jordan"  which  is  mentioned  (Matt.  xix.  1),  and 
where  Jesus  went  after  the  Feast  of  Dedication  (John  x.  40.  See 
Caspari's  map).  But  Conder  (H.  B.,  315),  thinks  it  pretty  clear  that 
Batanaea  was  a  district  southeast  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  and  probably 
extended  westward  to  the  Jordan,  and  southward  to  Pella.  And 
here,  on  the  east  bank  of  Jordan,  we  are  to  find  Bethany  or  Betha- 
bara,  and  here,  a  little  north  of  Pella,  he  places  it  upon  his  ma]:).  On 
the  other  hand.  Porter  (H.  B.,  499)  identifies  Batanaea  with  a  district 
east  of  the  Lejah,  and  north  of  the  range  of  Jebel  Hauran,  the  old 
name  being  still  retained  among  the  natives.  If  this  was  its  position, 
Bethania  was  far  away  from  the  Jordan.  (See  Bible  Die,  sub  voce: 
Riehm,  art.  Bashan.) 

Thus  it  appears  that  we  reach  no  definite  result  as  to  the  site  of 
Bethany  by  seeking  it  as  a  village  in  the  province  of  Batanaea,  or  by 
identifying  it  with  the  province,  since  the  position  and  limits  of  this 
province  are  in  doubt. 

No  satisfactory  result  being  obtained  in  this  way,  let  us  ask  what 
we  learn  from  the  Gospels  as  to  the  places  of  John's  baptism.  Men- 
tion is  made  in  them  of  two,  Bethabara  and  ^non.  (The  site  of  the 
latter  will  be  considered  later.)  That  John  may  have  baptized  at 
different  points  along  the  river,  is  not  in  itself  improbable.  The 
words  of  Luke  iii.  3,    "He  came  into  all  the  country  about  Jordan, 


148  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  II 

preacliing  the  baptism  of  repentance,"  may  be  understood  as  embrac- 
ing all  the  places  of  his  activity,  earlier  and  later.  Such  change  of 
place  has  nothing  against  it. 

It  is  intrinsically  probable  that  the  Baptist  would  seek  a  place  for 
his  baptism  at  or  near  some  ford  of  the  Jordan ;  and  the  narrative  leads 
us  to  suppose  that  his  baptismal  work  began  in  lower  Peraea,  not  far 
from  Jericho,  since  here  was  a  convenient  place  for  the  people  to 
gather  from  Jiidtea  and  Jerusalem,  and  also  from  Galilee  (Keim,  i. 
494).  Two  chief  roads  lead  from  Jericho  to  the  east  of  the  river,  — - 
that  to  Heshbon  southeast,  and  that  to  Ramoth  Gilead  northeast. 
If  we  choose  between  the  fords  on  these  two  roads,  it  could  not  well 
have  been  the  lower,  as  the  dejjth  of  the  water  is  too  great,  and  it 
would  have  been  too  far  south  for  those  coming  from  Galilee;  we 
must,  therefore,  take  the  upper  ford  opposite  Beth-Nimrah  —  now 
Beit-Nimrim  —  where  was  an  ancient  ferry,  and  where  recently  a 
bridge  has  been  built.  Of  course,  crossing  the  river  is  possible  in 
many  places  when  the  water  is  low,  but  John  would  naturally  select 
a  spot  on  some  great  line  of  travel,  and  so  easily  accessible  to  all. 
We  think  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  he  began  his  baptism  on 
the  lower  Jordan  at  a  jjoint  near  Jerusalem. 

What  light  do  we  get  upon  this  from  tradition  ?  As  Joshua  and 
the  people  crossed  the  Jordan  "right  against  Jericho"  (Joshua  iii. 
16),  it  was  natural  that  the  early  Christians  should  put  the  Lord's 
baptism  at  the  same  place.  This  feeling  is  seen  much  later  in 
Lightfoot,  who  says:  "There  is  reason  to  believe  that  John  was  bap- 
tizing in  the  very  place  where  the  Israelites  passed  over,  and  that  our 
Lord  was  baptized  in  the  spot  where  the  Ark  rested  on  the  bed  of  the 
river."  But  even  if  the  places,  as  is  probable,  were  not  far  apart,  any 
identification  of  them  is,  of  course,  impossible.  Tristram  (B.  P.,  103) 
thinks  that  as  "the  principal  ford  was  in  ancient  times  opposite 
Beth-Nimrah,  the  passage  under  Joshua  probably  took  place  here, 
and  here  also  Elijah  probably  passed  "  (2  Kings  ii.  8).  How  early 
the  Christian  disciples  began  to  baptize  at  the  lower  fords  near 
Jericho  we  do  not  certainly  know.  It  may  have  been  as  early  as  the 
second  century.  Jerome  speaks  of  many  that  went  there  to  be 
baptized  — plurimi  e  fratrilnis  ibi  renasci  cupientes  vitali  gtirgite 
haiitizantur.  Antonius  in  the  sixth  century  speaks  of  a  wooden 
cross  in  the  middle  of  the  stream;  and  Arculf  (700  A.  D.)  says: 
"A  wooden  cross  stands  in  the  Jordan  on  th,e  spot  where  our 
Lord  was  baptized.  A  stone  bridge  raised  on  arches  reaches  from  the 
bank  of  the  river  to  the  cross  where  people  bathe.  A  little  church 
stands  on  the  brink  of  the  water  on  the  spot  where  our  Lord  is  said 


Part  II.J  PLACE   OF  THE   LORd's  BAPTISM.  140 

to  have  laid  his  clothes  when  he  entered  the  river.  On  the  higher 
ground  is  a  large  monastery  of  monks  and  a  church  dedicated  to  St. 
John.  (Early  Travels,  viii.)  Willibald  also,  a  little  later,  speaks 
"  of  a  cross  as  standing  in  the  middle  of  the  river  where  is  a  small 
depth  of  water,  and  a  rope  is  extended  to  it  over  the  Jordan.  At  the 
feast  of  the  Epiphany  the  infirm  and  sick  come  hither,  and,  holding 
by  the  rope,  dip  in  the  water."  These  accounts  would  seem  to  intim- 
ate that  this  was  not  a  ford  or  place  of  regular  crossing. 

There  are  now  the  ruins  of  several  monasteries  on  the  west  bank 
near  Jericho.  That  known  as  the  Jews'  castle  —  Kusr  El  Yehudi  — 
and  which,  according  to  Robinson  (i.  445),  existed  before  Justinian 
(518  A.  D.),  is  believed  to  be  that  which  was  dedicated  to  St.  John 
the  Baptist.  These  ruins  are  about  eight  miles  north  from  the 
Dead  Sea,  and  a  mile  north  of  the  confluence  of  the  Wady  Kelt. 
On  the  south  side  of  tlie  Kelt  is  the  Haglah  ford,  and  this  was  regarded 
in  earlier  times  by  both  Greeks  and  Latins  as  the  place  of  the  Lord's 
baptism;  but  now  they  have  their  distinct  bathing  places  some 
miles  apart;  that  of  the  Greeks,  near  the  Jews'  castle,  that  of  the 
Latins  below,  but  Robinson  and  Tliomson  and  others  say  that  the 
Greeks  bathed  lower  down.  ■•'  The  Greek  pilgrims  bathe  at  a  spot 
where  there  is  a  vacant  clearing  down  to  the  water's  edge ;  the  Latins' 
sacred  place  is  higher  up  near  the  ruins  of  an  old  convent."  (Pict. 
Pal.,  165.)  McGarvey  (342)  puts  the  Greek  bathing  place  about 
four  miles  north  of  the  Dead  Sea  near  to  the  Helu  ford,  and  here,  he 
thinks,  Jesus  was  baptized.  He  speaks  of  the  ford  opposite  Jericho 
as  an  admirable  place  for  bathing.  (Baed.,  366;  N.  Test,  map  of  the 
P.  E.  F.     See  Lynch,  255;  Ritter,  Theil,  xv.   536.) 

But  both  the  time  and  place  of  the  pilgrim  baptisms  have  been 
changed.  Till  the  sixteenth  century  the  pilgrims  baptized  at  tlie 
Epiphany — the  sixth  of  January, — after  this  at  Easter;  now  the 
Greek  pilgrims  on  the  Monday  after  Easter.  It  is  uncertain  how 
early  the  Greeks  and  Latins  began  to  have  separate  bathing  places. 

But  if  it  be  admitted  that  the  Lord  was  baptized,  as  most  hold,  on 
the  lower  Jordan  near  Jericho,  perhaps  at  the  ford  opposite  Beit- 
Nimrim,  this  does  not  identify  it  with  Bethabara  or  Bethany,  for  the 
Baptist  may  have  changed  the  place  of  his  baptism  before  the  Lord 
returned  from  the  temptation.  There  are  three  views  that  may  be 
taken  of  the  matter:  1.  That  Bethabara  was  near  Jericho,  and  that 
He  was  baptized  there,  and  that  He  found  John  still  there  on  return- 
ing from  the  wilderness.  2.  That  Bethabara  was  higher  up  on  the 
Jordan,  perhaps  at  the  ford  Damieh,  or  still  higher  at  Succoth,  or 
higher  still  near  Bethshean,  or  at  Abarah,  or  even  above  the  entrance 


150  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  II 

of  the  river  into  the  Sea  of  Galilee;  and  that  from  tliis  point  He  de- 
parted into  the  wilderness.  Both  these  views  assume  that  Bethabara, 
■wherever  it  may  have  been,  was  the  place  of  His  baptism,  and  that  to 
it  He  returned  after  His  temptation.  3.  That  Bethabara  was  not  His 
baptismal  place;  He  was  baptized,  perhaps,  near  Jericho,  and  thence 
went  into  the  wilderness;  but  before  He  returned  from  the  temptation, 
John  had  left  that  place  and  gone  to  Bethabara,  and  that  Jesus  went 
to  him  there. 

1 .  The  first  of  these  views,  that  Bethabara  was  on  the  lower  Jordan 
near  Jericho,  is  that  most  generally  held ;  the  chief  objection  brought 
against  it  is,  that  the  distance  from  it  to  Cana  of  Galilee  is  too  great. 
It  is  said  that  the  Lord  must  have  gone  from  there  to  Cana  in  one  day, 
which  He  could  not  have  done.  (See  John  i.  43;  ii.  1.  So  Caspari, 
Conder,  and  others.)  But  as  we  shall  see  in  our  examination  of  the 
passage,  there  is  no  good  ground  to  say  that  the  journey  was  made 
in  one  day. 

2.  The  second  of  these  views,  that  Bethabara  was  higher  up  on 
the  Jordan,  has  often  been  presented.  Thomson  thinks  that  to  put 
Bethabara  at  the  ford  of  Damieh  some  twenty  miles  above  Jericho  is 
not  too  far  north  to  accord  with  the  narrative.  Merrill  (198)  speaks 
of  a  good  ferry  here,  and  on  the  east  bank  a  Bethabara  or  "house 
belonging  to  the  ford."  According  to  Stanley,  it  was  the  ford  near 
Succoth,  which  is  some  ten  miles  above  Damieh.  (Gen.  xxxiii.  17; 
Judges  viii.  4,5.)  Caspari  puts  it  on  the  east  side  of  the  Jordan  just 
above  its  entrance  into  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 

3.  The  third  view,  that  the  Lord  was  bajitized  near  Jericho,  but 
that  Jolm  soon  after  moved  up  the  river  to  Bethabara  or  Bethany,  and 
was  there  when  Jesus  returned  from  the  wilderness,  was  long  since 
presented  by  Lightfoot.  He  says:  "  Let  us  place  the  Bethabara  we 
are  seeking  for  on  the  further  side  of  Jordan  in  the  Scythopolitan 
Country."  But  he  holds  that  Jesus  was  not  baptized  here.  His  bap- 
tism was  at  "at  the  passage  at  Jericho,"  and  after  Um  John  baptized 
at  the  passage  at  Scythopolis.  On  his  map  of  Canaan,  Bethabara  is 
put  on  the  east  side,  between  the  Sea  of  Galilee  and  Lake  Merom. 
Conder  (Qt.  St.,  1878,  120)  takes  the  same  general  view,  holding  that 
the  Lord's  baptism  was  near  Jericho,  but  that  John  soon  after  went 
some  fifty  miles  higher  up  the  river,  and  baptized  at  a  ford  which  now 
bears  the  name  Abarah,  and  is  a  little  above  Beisan  or  Scythopolis. 
With  Conder  Edersheim  (i.  278)  agrees,  and  thinks  that  the  Baptist 
at  this  point  had  reached  the  most  northern  point  of  his  mission 
journey.  From  this  ford  to  Nazareth  is  little  more  than  twenty 
miles. 


Part  IL]  PLACE  OF  THE  LORd's  BAPTISM.  151 

There  is  nothing  which  enables  us  to  say  positively  that  John, 
after  the  baptism  of  Jesus  and  during  the  period  of  the  forty  days  of 
the  temptation,  did  not  leave  the  neighborhood  of  Jericho  and  go 
higher  up  the  river,  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  narrative  to  indicate 
this ;  and  the  language,  ' '  where  John  was  —  fjv  —  at  the  first  baptiz- 
ing" (John  X.  40,  R.  V.),  rather  implies  permanence;  "He  was 
employed  in  baptizing"  (Meyer).  But  that  he  may  have  baptized 
at  different  points  along  the  river  is  very  probable,  and  is  intimated 
by  "first,"  his  later  baptismal  work  having  been  carried  on  in  other 
places.  McGarvey  (515),  who  made  particular  examinations  as  to 
this  point,  found  many  places  where  John  might  have  baptized  at 
ordinary  stages  of  the  water;  and  Conder  speaks  of  some  forty 
fords  which  he  visited.  The  words  of  Luke  (iii.  3),  "He  came 
into  all  the  country  about  Jordan,"  are  understood  by  Ebrard  (313) 
to  embrace  all  the  places  of  John's  baptismal  labors,  earlier  and 
later.  Ffoulkes  (Smith's  B.  D.,  i.  1127)  supposes.  John  to  have 
baptized  at  three  distinct  fords  of  the  Jordan :  first,  at  the  lower  ford 
near  Jericho,  to  which  the  people  of  Judaea  and  Jerusalem  would 
naturally  come;  second,  higher  up  the  river  at  Bethabara,  to  which 
the  people  of  Galilee  and  the  northern  parts  of  the  land  came,  and 
where  Jesus  was  baptized ;  third,  still  higher  up  at  ^non,  a  ford 
less  frequented,  but  where  was  abundance  of  water.  (Of  .J^non  we 
shall  speak  later.) 

"Was  Bethabara  the  place  where  John  began  to  baptize?  This  has 
been  inferred  from  John  x.  40:  "The  Lord  went  away  again  beyond 
Jordan  to  the  place  where  John  at  first  baptized."  "  Where  John  was 
at  the  first  baptizing  "  (R.  V.).  This  is  read  by  Meyer :  "  Where  John 
was  when  he  baptized  for  the  first  time";  i.  e.,  he  began  his  baptism 
there.  ■  If  this  be  the  right  understanding  of  the  words,  Bethabara 
was  in  or  near  the  wilderness  of  Judaea,  and  this  would  disprove  the 
assertion  that  the  site  of  Bethabara  could  have  been  above  the  Sea  of 
Galilee,  or  a  little  way  below;  • 

The  time  of  baptism  in  tl»3  Jordan,  as  affected  by  the  rain  and 
heat,  has  already  been  considered  in  the  chronological  discussion. 
We  may  notice  here  an  objection  of  Caspari's  (112)  to  John's  baptiz- 
ing in  the  lower  Jordan,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  unclean  for  pur- 
poses of  lustration,  and  that  he  would  have  incurred  the  censure  of 
the  Pharisees  and  Sanhedrists.  But  this  rests  on  very  slender 
Rabinnical  authority,  and  is  not  even  mentioned  by  Hamburger  or 
Neubauer  in  their  articles  on  tfie  Jordan.  It  is  said  by  others  that 
the  Jordan  takes  its  name  onlj^  after  it  leaves  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 
(See  Neubauer,  30.)  Reland  (27^  notices  the  distinction  of  major 
and  minor  Jordan,  and  makes  Lal^  Merom  the  point  of  divison. 


152  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  II 

The  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  when  He  came 
to  be  baptized,  is  to  be  explained,  not  by  the  fact  of  prior 
acquaintance,  for  such  acquaintance  is  by  no  means  certain,*  but 
by  the  immediate  revelation  of  God,  and  through  an  appointed 
sign.  John  knew  the  nature  of  his  own  mission  as  the  herald 
of  the  Messiah,  but  he  did  not  know  who  the  Messiah  was,  or 
when  He  would  appear.  The  mark  by  which  he  should 
recognize  Him  was  one  to  be  given  at  a  fitting  time,  the  super- 
natural descent  of  the  Spirit  upon  Him  (John  i.  33).  How  far 
John  may  have  had  knowledge  of  the  events  connected  with 
Jesus'  birth,  or  been  brought  into  personal  intercourse  with  Him, 
does  not  appear  (Ebrard,  258).  Assuming  such  knowledge  on  the 
ground  of  the  intimacy  of  the  two  mothers,  Elisabeth  and  Mary, 
the  words  of  the  Baptist  (John  i.  31),  "I  knew  Him  not,"  are 
said  by  some  to  be  in  contradiction  to  the  statements  in  Luke  i. 
26  ff.  If  these  mothers  were  so  closely  brought  together,  they 
ask,  must  not  their  children,  as  they  grew  up,  have  known 
through  them  of  one  another,  and  of  the  supernatural  actings  of 
God,  and  of  the  prophetic  words  spoken  of  them  ?  Thus, 
Alford  says  :  "  From  the  nature  of  John's  relationship  to  the 
Lord,  it  follows  that  John  could  not  but  know  those  events 
which  had  accompanied  His  birth."  And  would  they  not  only 
have  had  friendly  relations  but  also  personal  acquaintance? 
(Such  acquaintance  is  affirmed  by  some,  Hales,  Townsend;  contra, 
Ebrard,  319.)  But  we  are  to  remember  here  that  the  purposes 
of  God  in  these  children,  as  made  known  to  their  parents,  were 
something  far  too  high  and  sacred  to  be  made  known  by  them 
to  others  without  His  direction.  He  who  is  admitted  _to  the 
divine  counsels  knows  that  God  has  a  fitting  time  for  speech  and 
a  time  for  silence ;  and  that  those  whom  He  takes  to  be  workers 
together  with  Him  must  wait  His  bidding.  What  Zacharias 
and  Elisabeth  may  have  told  John  of  the  wondrous  events  con- 
nected with  his  birth,  and  of  his  calling  to  be  the  forerunner  of 
the  Messiah,  we  do  not  know ;  but  there  is  every  reason  to  believe 
that  they  said  nothing.  They  knew  that  he  must  be  prepared 
for  his  work  by  the  spirit  of  God  teaching  him,  and  that  the 
knowledge  of  his  future  mission  could  not  be  pr'^'^iaturely  given 


»Ewald,  V.  102  ;  Ellicott,  107,  note  ;  EJers.,  i.  232. 


Part  II.]  RECOGNITION  OP  JESUS  BY  JOHN.  l53 

him.  This  is  also  true  of  the  Lord.  We  are  told  that  "  His 
mother  kept  these  things,  and  pondered  them  in  her  heart." 
It  was  not  hers  to  make  His  heavenly  descent  known  even  to 
Himself,  nor  to  anticipate  God  in  His  revelation  of  Him  to  men 
by  untimely  disclosures,  but  to  give  Him  such, an  education  in 
the  ways  of  God  as  was  possible  for  her,  and  to  wait  quietly  till 
the  Holy  Spirit  should  awaken  in  Him  the  consciousness  of  His 
mission,  and  indicate  that  the  time  for  His  Messianic  work  had 
come. 

It  is  not,  therefore,  necessary  to  believe  that  either  Jesus  or 
John  knew  of  the  high  calhng  of  the  other,  or  even  that  they 
had  any  personal  acquaintance.  Their  homes  were  far  removed, 
one  dwelling  in  Galilee,  and  one  in  Southern  Judaea.  They  may 
have  met,  but  we  have  no  proof  of  it.  We,  therefore,  find  no 
contradiction  between  John's  words  (Matt.  iii.  14),  "I  have  need 
to  be  baptized  of  Thee,  and  comest  Thou  to  me  ? "  and  his 
words  (John  i.  34),  "  I  saw,  and  bare,  record  that  this  is  the 
Son  of  God." .  The  knowledge  that  John  had  of  Jesus  before  His 
baptism  was  not  as  the  Messiah,  but  as  a  holy  man,  and  one  not 
to  be  classed  among  those  whom  he  came  to  caU  to  repentance. 
This  knowledge  of  Him  he  may  have  obtained  by  a  previous 
knowledge  of  His  holy  life,  by  the  absence  of  any  confession  of 
personal  sin  at  His  baptism,  or  by  a  spiritual  perception  of  His 
holy  character  given  him  at  the  time.  (Pressens^,  221,  "By  a 
divine  intuition.")  After  His  baptism,  when  John  saw  the 
Spirit  descending  upon  Him  —  the  divinely  appointed  sign, —  he 
"bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God." 

We  may  well  believe  that  when  Jesus  came  to  be  baptized, 
His  whole  appearance,  His  demeanor  and  language,  so  mani- 
fested His  exalted  character  to  the  discerning  eye  of  the  Bap- 
tist illumined  by  the  Spirit,  that  he  had  an  immediate  presenti- 
nient  who  He  was,  and  could  say  to  Him  :  "I  have  need  to  be 
baptized  of  Thee."  Such  supernatural  discernment  of  character 
was  sometimes  given  to  the  old  prophets.  So  Samuel  discerned 
the  future  king  in  Saul,  and  afterward  in  David.  (1  Sam.  ix.  17 ; 
xvi.  12.  Compare  also  Luke  i.  41,  when  John,  yet  a  babe  in 
his  mother's  womb,  leaps  for  joy  at  the  salutation  of  the  Virgin 
Maiy.)     Still  it  was  not  till  John  had  seen  the  appointed  sign, 


154  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  II 

the  descent  of  the  Spirit,  that  he  could  bear  witness  to  Jesus  as 
the  Messiah.' 

The  placing  of  the  Lord's  baptism,  not  at  the  beginning  but 
during  or  at  the  end  of  His  Judsean  ministry,''  is  wholly 
arbitrary. 

Some  have  inferred  from  Luke  iii.  21,  that  the  descent  of  the 
Spirit  was  in  the  presence  of  the  multitude,  and  visible  to  all.^ 
But  we  should  rather  say,  with  Edersheim,  that  Jesus  and  John 
were  alone,  or,  if  not  alone,  that  the  vision  was  to  John  only.  It 
was  a  sign  peculiar  to  him,  for  he  was  to  bear  witness  to  others 
who  should  receive  his  witness.  And  thus  he  says  (John  i. 
32-34),  "I  saw  the  Spirit"  —  "And  I  saw,  and  bare  record  that 
this  is  the  Son  of  God."  Others  were  to  believe,  not  because 
they  saw,  but  because  he  bare  record. 

January  —  February,  780.    A.  D.  27. 

Immediately  after  His  baptism  Jesus  is  led  by  the  Spirit  Matt.  iv.  1-11. 
into  the  wilderness  to  be  tempted  of  the  devil,  and  continues  Mark  i.  12,  13. 
there  forty  days.     After  the  temptations  are  ended  He  re-  Luke  iv.  1-13. 
turns   to   the    Jordan.      Just  before   His    return,    John    is  John  i.  19-28. 
visited  by  a  Deputation  of  priests  and  Levites  from  Jerusalem, 
to  inquire  who   he   is,  and  by  what  authority  he  baptizes. 
In  reply,  he   announces  himself  as  the  forerunner  of  the 
Messiah.    The  next  day  he  sees  Jesus  coming  to  him,   and 
bears  witness  to  Him  as  the  Lamb  of  God.     The  day  following  John  i.  29-37. 
he  repeats  this  testimony  to  his  disciples.     Two  of  them  fol- 
low Him  to  His  home,  and,  joined  by  others  soon  after,  go 
with  Him  to  Galilee.  John  i.  38-51. 

Whether  the  Baptist  remained  during  the  forty  days  of  the 
temptation  in  the  same  place  where  the  Lord  was  baptized,  is  in 
question,  and  has  already  been  spoken  of. 

Matthew  and  Luke  differ  in  the  order  of  the  three  tempta- 
tions; but  on  internal  grounds,  which  cannot  here  be  given, 
that  of  Matthew  is  to  be  preferred.* 

That  Jesus  returned  at  once  from  the  wilderness  to  the  Jor- 
dan is  apparent  from  the  whole  order  of  the  narrative.  Wiese- 
ler,  however  (258),  makes  a  period  of  5-7  months  to  have  inter- 


1  Meyer,  in  loco;  Ebrard,  259.  *  go  Pilkington  and  Whiston. 

8  So  Meyer. 

*A8  to  the  relation  of  the  fast  to  the  temptations,  see  Greswell,  ii.  206;  Williams, 
Nativ..244. 


Part  IL]  TEMPTATION   OF  JESUS.  155 

vened,  during  which  nothing  respecting  Him  is  narrated.     This 
is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable. 

The  Synoptists  do  not  mention  the  visit  of  the  Deputation  to 
the  Baptist,  nor  does  John  mention  the  temptation,  but  it  is 
generally  agreed  that  the  latter  preceded  the  former. 

The  temptation  seems  to  have  followed  immediately  upon  the 
baptism.  The  place  of  the  Lord's  temptatiou  was  iu  the  wilderness 
of  Judaea  already  spoken  of,  and  cannot  be  more  particularly  desig- 
nated. Tradition  points  to  a  high  mountain  a  little  west  of  Jericho, 
overlooking  the  plain  of  the  Jordan  and  beyond,  as  "the  exceeding 
high  mountain "  from  which  the  tempter  showed  the  Lord  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  world.  This  mountain,  in  allusion  to  the  forty 
days'  fast,  was  called  the  Quarantana.  Thomson  says  that  ' '  the 
side  facing  the  plain  is  as  perpendicular,  and  a])parently  as  high,  as 
the  rock  of  Gibraltar,  and  upon  the  very  summit  are  still  visible  the 
ruins  of  an  ancient  convent."  Robinson  speaks  of  it  as  "  a  perpendi- 
cular wall  of  rock,  1,200  or  1,500  feet  above  the  plain."  He  does  not 
think  the  name  or  tradition  to  be  older  than  the  crusades,  the 
mountain  being  first  mentioned  by  Saewulf  about  1100  A.  D.,  and  its 
name  a  hundred  years  later.  The  place  of  the  temptation  was 
probably  not  very  far  distant  from  the  place  of  His  baptism;  and 
those  who  put  this  higher  up  on  the  Jordan  near  the  Sea  of  Galilee, 
must  find  the  wilderness  on  the  east  or  southeast  of  the  sea.  (See 
EUicott,  106;  Greswell,  ii.  202;  Edersheim,  i.  300,  note.)  Stanley 
makes  the  scene  of  the  temptation  to  have  been  on  the  eastern  side 
of  the  Jordan  among  the  "desert  hills  whence  Moses  had  seen  the 
view  of  all  the  kingdoms  of  Palestine";  Sepp  also  puts  it  on  the 
eastern  shores  of  the  Dead  Sea.  But  there  is  greater  fitness  if  we  find 
it  on  the  western  shores  of  that  sea.  As  said  by  Pressense  (230) : 
"Those  denuded  rocks,  that  reddened  soil  scorched  by  a  burning 
sun,  that  sulphurous  sea  stretching  like  a  shroud  over  the  accursed 
cities,  all  this  land  of  death,  mute  and  motionless  as  the  grave,  formed 
a  fitting  scene  for  the  decisive  conflict  for  the  Man  of  Sorrows." 

The  reputation  of  the  Baptist  seems  now  to  have  reached  its 
culminating  point,  and  attracted  the  attention  of  the  Pharisees 
and  ecclesiastical  rulers  at  Jerusalem.  So  popular  a  religious 
reformer  could  no  longer  be  left  unnoticed;  and  accordingly, 
acting  probably  in  an  official  manner  as  the  Sanhedrin,'  they 


iSo  Meyer,  Wleseler,  Goclet ;  contra,  M.  and  M.,  Eders.    Tholuck  remarks  that  the 
Sanhedrin  was  "  under  special  obligation  to  prevent  the  appearing  of  false  prophets." 


150  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  II 

sent  a  Deputation  of  priests  and  Levites  to  ask  him  certain 
questions.  As  he  denied  that  he  was  "the  Christ,"  or  "Elias," 
or  "that  prophet,"  his  answers  gave  them  no  sufficient  ground 
of  accusation  against  him,  however  much  they  might  have 
sought  it.  The  next  day  he  saw  Jesus,  apparently  now  return- 
ing from  the  temptation,  and  for  the  first  time  pointed  Him  out 
as  He  that  should  come  after  him,  the  Lamb  of  God,  and  the 
Baptizer  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  he  could  not  have  done 
till  after  the  baptism,  for  after  it  was  the  sign  given,  and  im- 
mediately after  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  Jesus  departed  into  the 
wilderness.  This  was,  therefore,  the  first  opportunity  of  the 
Baptist  to  testify  to  Him  personally  as  the  Christ.  His  testi- 
mony to  Jesus  was,  up  to  this  time,  general.  He  knew  that  one 
should  come  after  him,  but  who,  or  when,  he  could  not  say ;  and 
this  is  the  character  of  his  witness,  as  given  in  the  Synoptists. 
But  after  the  baptism  he  could  bear  a  definite  witness.  He  had 
seen  and  recognized  the  Messiah  by  the  divinely  appointed  sign, 
and  could  say,  This  is  the  man,  He  is  come.  He  is  personally 
present  before  you. 

Let  us  cousider  the  order  of  events.  Two  points  are  in  dispute: 
Had  the  Lord  been  baptized  and  tempted  at  the  time  of  the  coming 
of  the  Deputation  ?  Had  He  returned  from  the  wilderness  to  the  Jor- 
dan before  their  coming  ?  Almost  all  put  the  baptism  and  the  tempta- 
tion before  they  came;  but  a  few  invert  this  order,  on  the  ground 
that  John's  words  (verse  27),  "He  coming  after  me,  is  preferred 
before  me,"  must  refer  to  the  revelation  of  Jesus  to  John,  including  the 
testimony  at  His  baptism ;  and  this,  therefore,  must  be  put  between 
verses  27-29.  The  Deputation  came  in  the  morning,  and  Jesus  was 
baptized  in  the  evening  of  the  same  day,  and  on  the  next  day  John 
bore  his  testimony  to  the  people  (verse  29  f.  See  Baumlein,  in  loco). 
But  the  grounds  on  which  this  is  affirmed  are  insufficient. 

The  second  question  is  not  so  easily  answered.  Some  say  that  the 
Lord  returned  to  the  Jordan  before  the  Deputation  came,  on  the 
ground  that  John's  words  (verse  2G)  "  There  standeth  one  among  you 
whom  ye  know  not,"  ("In  the  midst  of  you  standeth  one,"  II.  V.) 
imply  that.  He  was  then  among  those  who  were  listening  to  John's 
answer.  "There  He  stood  unknown  and  unrecognized  amidst  the 
throng."  (M.  and  M.,  Godet,  and  others.)  But  it  may  be  taken 
in  a  general  sense  to  mean :  He  has  already  appeared ;  He  is  among 
you,  the  Jewish  people.     (So  apparently,  Meyer,  Tholuck.j 


Part  II.]  JOHN'S   TESTIMONY   TO   JESUS.  157 

This  is  a  point  which  caunot  be  positively  decided.  The  order 
of  events  may  have  been  in  one  of  the  two  following  ways: 
1.  Bajitism  of  Jesus.  2.  His  departure  to  the  wilderness,  temptation, 
and  return.  3.  Visit  of  the  Deputation.  4.  John's  witness  to  it  of 
Jesus  (verses  19-27).  In  this  case  the  question  arises,  Did  Jesus  hear 
this  testimony,  standing  unknown  among  those  there  gathered  ? 

1.  Baptism.  2.  Departure  into  the  wilderness,  and  tempta- 
tion. 3.  Coming  of  the  Deputation,  and  John's  testimony  to  it.  4. 
Return  of  Jesus  on  the  next  day. 

The  Baptist  seems  to  have  borne  three  distinct  testimonies  on 
three  successive  days :  1  (verses  19-27).  To  the  Deputation  ;  whether 
this  was  in  public  and  heard  by  all  we  do  not  know.  2  (verses 
29-84).  To  whom  this  testimony  was  borne  we  are  not  told,  some 
say,  to  the  Deputation ;  some,  to  the  miscellaneous  crowd  of  the  bap- 
tized; some,  to  a  small  circle  of  disciples.  If  it  was  to  the  Deputa- 
tion, they  must  have  taken  note  of  the  person  of  Jesus,  and  so  been 
able  to  recognize  Him  again  when  He  appeared  to  cleanse  the  temple.' 
3  (verses  35-36).  To  the  two  disciples. 

The  question  here  arises,  How  was  the  Lord's  baptism  in  point  of 
time  related  to  that  of  .John's  Galiloean  discij^les,  Andrew,  Simon, 
John  ?  Were  they  baptized  before  Him  or  after  ?  It  is  commonly 
supposed,  before ;  if  so,  they  must  have  been  with  John  a  consideral;)le 
period  ;  and  this  would  indicate  that  they  took  some  part  in  his 
baptismal  work.  This  is  the  view  of  Pressense  (218)  that  "they 
aided  him  in  his  ministry,  and  baptized  the  multitudes  with  him." 
It  seems,  however,  not  improbable  that  the  Lord  was  baptized  before 
them,  and  that  they  came  to  John  afterward,  during  His  absence  in 
the  wilderness.  This  finds  some  support  in  the  fact  that  in  the  men- 
tion of  the  parts  of  the  land  from  which  people  came  to  -John's  bap- 
tism, Galilee  is  not  included.  Matthew  says  (iii.  5),  ' '  Then  went  out  to 
him  Jerusalem  and  all  Judaea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan." 
Mark  (i.  5),  "  All  the  land  of  Judaea  and  they  of  Jerusalem."  Luke 
does  not  say  from  whence  they  came,  but  of  the  place  of  his 
ministry  (iii.  3):  "He  came  into  all  the  country  about  Jordan." 
This  silence  about  Galilee  does  not  seem  to  be  accidental.  May  it  not 
indicate  that  the  Lord  was  the  first,  or  among  the  first,  who  came 
from  that  province  ?  and  that  His  baptism  was  before  that  of  John's 
Galiltean  disciples  ?  If  so,  the  order  of  events  would  be  as  follows: 
Jesus  comes  and  is  baptized,  and  departs  into  the  wilderness; 
Andrew,  Peter,  and  others  come  from  Galilee,  and  are  baptized  during 


1  Ae  to  the  view  of  Origeii  that  there  were  three  different  missions  from  Jerusalem, 
distinguished  in  verses  li),  31,  25,  see  Williams'  Natirity,  264. 


158  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  II. 

His  absence ;  upon  His  return  John  points  Him  out  to  them,  and  they 
follow  Him. 

One  of  the  two  disciples  to  whom  John  pointed  out  Jesus  as  the 
"Lamb  of  God,"  was  Andrew,  and  there  is  no  doul)t  that  the  other 
was  the  Evangelist  John  himself;  though  with  the  reserve  that  charac- 
terizes him,  he  does  not  mention  here  or  elsewhere  in  his  gospel, 
his  own  name,  or  that  of  his  brother,  or  of  his  mother. 

"It  was  about  the  tenth  hour"  that  the  two  disciples  went  with 
Jesus  to  His  abode  (verse  39).  If  we  adopt  the  Jewish  computation, 
which  divides  the  period  from  sunrise  to  sunset  into  twelve  hours,  the 
tenth  hour  would  be  that  from  3-4  p.  m.  (Winer,  ii.  560).  This,  how- 
ever, would  leave  but  a  brief  space  for  their  interview,  and  seems  incon- 
sistent with  the  statement  that  "they  abode  with  Him  that  day." 
Some,  therefore,  refer  this  to  the  time  when  Andrew  brought  his 
brother  Simon  to  Jesus  (Licht.,  153).  All  the  day  had  the  two  disciples 
been  with  Him,  and  did  not  leave  Him  till  the  tenth  hour.  Others  say, 
that  the  two  going  to  Him  late  in  the  afternoon  remained  with  Him 
during  the  night  and  the  next  day  (Lightfoot).  Many,  not  satisfied 
with  these  explanations,  prefer  the  Roman  computation  from  mid- 
night, according  to  which  the  tenth  hour  would  be  from  9-10  a.  m., 
and  thus  the  disciples  had  the  whole  day  for  their  interview.  As 
the  notes  of  time  in  John  are  important,  his  mode  of  computing  the 
hours  must  be  considered. 

The  beginning  of  a  day  may  be  counted  from  different  points, 
from  sunrise,  from  sunset,  from  noon,  from  midnight.  The  Jews  com- 
puted their  day  from  sunset  to  sunset,  or  from  evening  to  evening  — 
vvx^vf^pov,  —  night-day,  —  and  this  period  was  divided  into  night, 
from  sunset  to  sunrise,  and  day,  from  sunrise  to  sunset.  (John  xi.  9 ; 
Matthew  xx.  3-6.)  The  Babylonians  are  said  to  have  computed  from 
sunrise  to  sunrise,  and  the  Romans  from  midnight  to  midnight,  as  do 
we.  Did  the  Jews  in  the  Lord's  day  use  this  Roman  mode  ?  As  is 
obvious,  much  confusion  arises  from  the  indefiuiteness  of  terms. 
The  term  "day,"  when  applied  to  mark  the  period  of  one  revolution 
of  the  earth  on  its  axis,  is  sufficiently  definite,  since  a  certain  fixed 
point  must  be  taken — sunrise,  or  noon,  or  other  —  as  the  beginning 
of  the  revolution.  But  the  division  of  this  day  into  twenty-four 
hours  is  artificial,  and  is  said  to  have  been  taken  by  the  Jews  from  the 
Babylonians  during  their  captivity. 

Besides  this  day  of  24  hours  there  is  the  natural  day  from 
sunrise  to  sunset,  which,  being  variable,  the  hours  into  which 
it  is  divided  are  correspondingly  variable,  the  shortest  being  49,  and 
the  longest  71  minutes  in  that  latitude. 


Part  II.]  John's  disciples  and  jesus.  159 

Having  thus  one  term  applied  both  to  the  period  of  24  hours  and 
to  the  period  from  sunrise  to  sunset,  and  the  last  being  divided  into  13 
hours  of  variable  length,  confusion  may  easily  arise  as  to  the  exact  time 
of  events.  The  natural  day  regarded  as  the  time  of  light  is  the  time  for 
human  labor;  but  this  period  is  not  sti'ictly  defined  by  the  moment  of 
sunrise  and  sunset  so  that  labor  must  then  begin  and  then  cease. 
In  common  usage,  the  term  day  would  not  be  thus  exactly  defined, 
but  would  embrace  the  time  of  labor,  be  it  longer  or  shorter.  Another 
element  also  comes  in,  which  adds  to  the  iudefiniteness  of  the  term. 
We  connect  night  not  only  with  darkness,  but  with  sleep,  and  the  day 
may  be  supposed  to  continue  till  the  usual  hour  of  sleep  comes. 

In  the  case  before  us,  "the  disciples  went  to  Jesus  about  the  tenth 
hour,  and  abode  with  Him  that  day."  If  we  accept  the  .Jewish  reck- 
oning, that  this  tenth  hour  was  from  three  to  four  in  the  afternoon, 
it  does  not,  therefore,  follow  that  they  left  Him  just  at  sundown, 
when  the  day  ended;  they  may  have  remained  much  later,  and  thus 
have  had  three  or  four  hours  for  their  interview. 

The  point  is  of  interest  only  as  regards  John's  gospel,  as  it  is  ad- 
mitted that  the  Synoptists  use  the  Jewish  comjiutation,  and  im})ort- 
ant  here  mainly  as  bearing  on  the  time  of  the  crucifixion  (John  xix. 
14).  It  is  not  easy  to  decide  with  any  positiveness.  Those  who  ad- 
vocate Koman  time  find  that  tliis  best  suits  the  various  passages  in 
which  the  hours  are  specified  by  this  Evangelist.  (See  the  following : 
iv.  6,  52;  xi.  9;  xix.  1,4,  which  will  each  be  examined  in  their  order.) 
It  is  said  by  Wieseler  (Syn.  410  f.)  that  at  Ephesus  where  John  lived 
and  wrote,  the  Roman  mode  of  computation  was  in  use.'  (So  M.  and 
M.,  in  loco\  McClellan,  741;  but  this  is  questioned  by  some.  See 
Farrar.) 

Greswell  (ii.  216)  admits  that  the  Jewish  and  Roman  modes  of 
computation  were  alike,  the  Romans  reckoning  the  civil  day  from 
sunrise  to  sunset,  but  supposes  John  to  have  used  the  modern  count- 
ing of  the  hours  —  from  midnight  to  noon,  and  noon  to  midnight. 
(See,  as  to  Roman  usage,  Becker's  Gallus,  315;  Pauly,  Real  Encyc,  ii. 
1017;  Wies.,  Beitrage,  252.) 

The  finding  of  Simon  (verse  41)  by  his  brother  Andrew,  and 
his  coming  to  Jesus,  was  upon  the  same  day  spoken  of  (verse  35). 
It  is  probable,  from  the  form  of  expression,  "  He  first  findeth 
his  own  brother  Simon,"  that  as  Andrew  brought  his  brother 
Simon  to  the  Lord,  so  John  also  brought  liis  brother  James. ^ 

1  For  the  Roman  computation,  Ewiild,  ;M8,  note  2  ;  Westcott,  Eders.,  i.  346,  note  .5  • 
M.  and  M.,  Ebrard,  a39  ;  Tholuck;  for  the  Jewish,  Meyer,  Rob.,  Godet,  Alford,  Caspari. 
Walking,  McClellan,  Farrar. 

2  Meyer,  Lichtenstein. 


160  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part]! 

But  Alford  explains  it  as  "  implying  that  both  disciples  went 
together  to  seek  Simon,  but  that  Andrew  found  him  first." 

The  next  day  (verse  43)  Jesus  departs  to  Galilee.  There 
seems  no  good  reason  to  doubt  that  He  was  accompanied  by 
Simon  and  Andrew  and  John,  who  had  recognized  in  Him  the 
Messiah.  Some,  however,  suppose  that  they  remained  with  the 
Baptist,  and  did  not  join  Jesus  till  a  much  later  period.'  This  is 
intrinsically  improbable.  Whether  Philip  was  called  by  the 
Lord  before  His  departure,  or  upon  His  way,  is  doubtful.^  Nor 
is  it  certain  that  the  calling  of  Philip  was  founded  upon  a  pre- 
vious acquaintance  with  the  Lord,  though  the  term  "  find " 
implies  this  ;  it  may  have  been  through  the  agency  of  Simon 
and  Andrew,  who  were  of  the  same  city  (verse  44).  Philip 
now  brings  to  the  Lord  another  disciple.  Where  he  found 
Nathanael  is  not  said,  but  most  probably  upon  the  journey. 

February  —  April,  780.     A.  D.  27. 

Going  to  Cana  of  Galilee,  the  Lord  at  a  marriage  feast  John  ii.  1-11. 
there  changes  water  into  wine.      Afterwards,  He  goes  down 
with  His  mother,  and  brethren,  and  disciples,  to  Capernaum,  John  ii.  12,  13. 
but  remains  there  only  a  few  days  as  the  Passover  is  at 
hand.    From  Capernaum  He  goes  up  to  Jerusalem  to  attend 
this  feast. 

"  And  the  third  day  there  was  a  marriage  "  (verse  1).  It  is 
disputed  from  what  point  of  time  this  third  day  is  to  be  reck- 
oned. Some  would  make  it  the  third  day  after  His  arrival  in 
Gahlee;^  others,  as  Alford,  the  third  day  from  the  calling  of 
Nathanael,  but  one  day  intervening;  and  others,  as  Lange, 
identify  it  with  the  day  last  mentioned  (verse  43).  Blunt  ^  sup- 
poses the  Evangelist  to  have  some  event  in  his  mind  from,  which 
he  dates,  but  which  he  does  not  mention.  But  most  count  from 
the  day  of  the  departure  to  Galilee  (verse  43).^ 

The  order  of  events  may  be  thus  given,  John  i.  19 — ii.  1. 
1st  day.     Visit   of  Deputation    and    John's   testimony   to  them 
(verses  19-27). 


»  So  author  of  "  The  Messiah,"  73. 

2  For  the  former,  Meyer,  Alford  ;  for  the  latter,  Tholuck,  M.  and  M. 

8  So  Kriedlieb,  Leben  Jesu,  189;  Trench,  Mir.,  83. 

*  Script.  Coincidences,  261. 

^  So  Robinson,  Meyer,  Lichtensteiu,  EUicott,  M.  and  M. 


Part  IT.]  THE  MARRIAGE  AT  CANA.  161 

2d.  Jesus  returns  to  John,  who  bears  a  second  witness  (verses 
29-34). 

3d.     The  two  disciples  visit  Jesus  (verses  35-42). 

4th.     He  begins  his  journey  to  Cana  (verse  43). 

5th.     On  the  way. 

6th.     On  the  way.     Reaches  Cana. 

7th.     At  Cana.     The  marriage  (ii.  1). 

We  give  the  following  variations: 

Luthardt  — 

1st,  2d,  and  3d  days,  same  as  before. 

4th.     Simon  brought  to  Him  (verses  41-42). 

5th.     Philip  and  Nathanael  brought  (verses  43-45). 

6th.     Departs  for  Cana. 

7th.     Arrives  at  Cana. 

8th.     The  marriage. 

Tlius  the  Lord's  ministry  begins  as  it  ends,  with  seven  days  whose 
events  are  specifically  mentioned. 

Godet  — 

1st,  2d,  and  3d  days,  as  before. 

4th.     Departs  for  Cana,  meets  Philip  on  the  way  (verse  43). 

5th.     Meets  Nathanael  (verses  45-47). 

6th.     Arrives  at  Cana. 

7th.     The  marriage. 

Edersheim  (i.  344)  assumes  that  the  marriage  in  Cana  was  of  a 
maiden,  not  of  a  widow,  and  if  so,  that  the  marriage  was  on  a  Wed- 
nesday.    With  this  assumption,  we  have  the  following  order  of  days: 

1st,  Thursday.     Visit  of  Deputation. 

2d,  Friday.     Jesus  returns. 

3d,  Sabbath.     The  two  disciples  meet  Him. 

4th,  Sunday.     Departs  for  Cana. 

5th,  Monday.     On  the  way. 

6th,  Tuesday.     Reaches  Cana. 

7th,  Wednesday.     The  Man-iage. 

Caspari,  (115,)  counts  "the  third  day,"  or  day  of  the  marriage, 
from  the  day  when  the  two  disciples  visited  Jesus  (verse  35).  The 
next  day  He  called  Philip  and  Nathanael.  The  third  day  He  went 
to  Cana,  a  distance,  according  to  Caspari,  of  only  twenty-two  miles. 
This  supposes  Bethabara  to  liave  l>een  high  up  on  the  Jordan. 

Whether  the  Lord  passed  through  Nazareth  on  His  way  to 
Cana,  depends  upon  the  position  of  Cana;  if  at  Kana  el  Jelil,  He 
would  reach  Nazareth  first.  Ewald  siipposes  that  the  family  of 
Joseph  had  at  this  time  left  Nazareth,  and  were  already  settled 


102  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  II 

at  Caua."  But  it  seems  conclusive  against  this  that  Philip  should 
speak  to  Nathanael  of  Jesus  as  Jesus  of  Nazareth  (John  i.  45), 
and  that  Nathanael,  who  was  of  Cana,  should  know  nothing  of 
Him.  The  mother  of  Jesus  seems  to  have  been  intimate  in  the 
family  where  the  wedding  took  place,  from  which  it  has  been  in- 
ferred that  she  was  a  relative  of  one  of  the  parties.  One  tradi- 
tion makes  Alpheus  and  Mary,  the  sister  of  the  Lord's  mother,  to 
have  resided  at  Cana,  and  the  marriage  to  have  been  that  of  one 
of  their  sons.  According  to  Greswell,  it  was  the  mai'riage  of 
Alpheus  and  Mary  themselves.  Another  tradition,  current 
among  the  Mohammedans,  and  maintained  by  some  in  the 
Church,  makes  John  the  apostle  to  have  been  the  bridegroom; 
another,  that  the  bridegroom  was  Simon  the  Canaanite,  the  lat- 
ter epithet  being  a  designation  of  his  residence,  not  of  his 
party.  As  no  allusion  is  made  to  Joseph,  the  most  obvious 
inference  is  that  he  was  already  dead.  Prom  the  fact  that  His 
disciples  were  invited  with  the  Lord,  it  would  appear  that  they 
were  friends  of  the  married  pair,  or  that  they  were  present  as 
friends  of  Jesus.  It  is  not  certain  that  all  the  disciples  are  here 
included;  perhaps  only  Philip  and  Nathanael  went  with  Him.^ 
Some,  however,  find  in  the  six  water  pots  an  allusion  to  the  Lord 
and  His  five  disciples.^ 

The  marriage  took  place  at  "  Cana  of  Galilee."  The  name  signi- 
fies, in  Hebrew,  a  "place  of  reeds,"  and  is  used  iu  the  Old  Tes- 
tament as  the  name  of  a  stream  on  the  borders  of  Epkraim  and 
Manassch  (Josh.  xvi.  8),  and  of  a  city  in  Asher  (Josh.  xix.  28). 
AVith  this  city  of  Asher  Greswell  identifies  the  Cana  of  the  Gospels. 
The  addition  "of  Galilee"  here  seems  designed  to  distinguish  it 
from  some  other  Cana.  There  are  now  two  Canas  in  Galilee;  one, 
Kana  el  Jelil,  north,  and  the  other,  Kefr  Kenna,  northeast  of  Naza- 
reth, and  it  is  disputed  which  is  meant.  Robinson  (ii.  347)  shows 
that  upon  etymological  grounds  the  former  is  to  be  preferred, 
the  present  Arabic  name  Kana  el  Jelil  being  identical  with  Cana  of 
Galilee,  while  Kefr  Kenna  "can  only  be  twisted  by  force  into  a  like 
shape."  He  shows  also  that  the  former  was  by  early  tradition  pointed 
out  as  the  true  site  of  the  miracle,  and  that  only  since  the  sixteenth 
century,  and  for  the  convenience  of  monks  and  travellers,  was  the 
latter  selected.     This  view  of  Robinson  has  found  much  acceptance/ 


1  So  Stanley,  :359,  note;  Weiss.  2  Treneh,  Mir.,  Si.  ^  See  Luthardt,  i.  77. 

*  So  Winer,  Kaumer,  Ritter,  Meyer,  Porter,  Van  de  Velde,  Sepp.  Socin. 


Part  IL]  SITE   OF  CANA  OF   GALILEE.  1G3 

De  Saulcy,  however  (ii.  376),  maiutains  the  claims  of  Kefr  Kcnna, 
affirming  that  the  present  name  of  Kana  el  Jelil  does  not  mean  Cana 
of  Galilee,  but  Cana  the  great,  or  illustrious.     He  also  objects  that 
this  village  is  too  far  from  Nazareth,  and  in  the  wrong  direction,  to 
answer  to  the   narrative.*     Stanley  speaks  of  the  claims  of  the  two 
Canas  as  "being  about  equally  balanced."     Thomson  speaks  hesitat- 
ingly.    Making  inquiries,  when  in  the  neighborhood,  of  all  he  met, 
where  the  water  was  made  wine,  "with  one  consent  they  pointed  to 
Kefr  Kenna.     Some  of  them  knew  of  a  ruin  called  Kanna  on  the  north 
side  of  the  great  plain  of  Buttauf,  but  only  one  had  ever  heard  of  the 
word  '  Jelil '  as  a  part  of  the  name,  and  from  hesitancy  with  which 
this  one  admitted  it,  I  was  left  in  doubt  whether  he  did  not  merely 
acquiesce  in  it  at  my  suggestion.     It  is  certain  that  very  few,  even  of 
the  Moslems,  know  the  full  name  of  Kana  el  Jelil ;  and  yet  I  think 
Dr.  Robinson  has  about  settled  the  question  in  its  favor."     Osborne 
says  that  at  Kefr  Kenna  he  inquired  its  name  of  his  guides  and  Arabs, 
who  said  it  was  also  called  Kenna  el  Jelil.     Also  one  of  the  natives 
called  it  Jelil.     He  considered  it,  however,  a  new  name,   devised  to 
preserve  the  character  of  the  2:)lace  as    Cana  of  Galilee.     It  is  said 
by  Zeller  (Qt.  St.,  1869,  71)  that  the  name  of  Kana  el  Jelil  is  known 
only  since  Robinson's    discovery;   the   Arabs  know  it   only  by  the 
name    of  KhurbetKana;  and  that  the  Christians  of  Palestine  never 
doubted  the  identity  of  Kefr  Kenna  with  the  Cana  of  the  Gospels. 
Some  think  "Galilee"  was  added  by  the  Evangelist  in  order  to  lay 
stress  upon  the  province.     It  was  in  Galilee,  not  in  Judgea,  where  the 
miracle  took  place.     (M.  and  M.) 

Kana  el  Jelil  lies  12  or  15  miles  north  of  Nazareth,  on  the  south- 
ern declivity  of  a  hill  that  ovei'looks  the  jjlain  El  Buttauf.  According 
to  Roljinson :  "The  situation  is  fine.  It  was  once  a  considerable  vil- 
lage of  well-built  houses,  now  deserted.  Many  of  the  dwellings  are 
in  ruins ;  we  could  discover  no  traces  of  antiquity. "  Thomson  says 
that  there  is  not  now  a  habitable  house  in  the  village,  though  some 
of  them  may  have  been  inhabited  within  the  last  fifty  years.  There 
are  many  ancient  cisterns  about  it,  and  fragments  of  water-jars  in 
abundance,  not,  however,  of  stone,  but  of  baked  earth.  Not  only 
is  the  village  deserted,  but  the  near  neighborhood  is  so  wild  that  it 
is  the  favorite  hunting  ground  for  the  inhabitants  of  Kefr  Kenna. 

Kefr  Kenna  lies  about  4  miles  northeast  of  Nazareth,  in  a  small 
valley  upon  the  border  of  a  plain.  At  the  entrance  of  the  village  is  a 
fountain  made  out  of  an  ancient  sarcophagus,  which  the  inhabitants 


1  See  Robinson's  Reply,  iii.  108,  note.    Ewald,  Christus,  170,  note,  decides  against 
De  Saulcy 


164  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  II. 

show  as  the  fountain  from  which  the  water-pots  were  filled.  A 
Greek  church  is  built  upon  the  site  of  the  miracle,  but  is  a  modern 
structure.  In  this  church  are  shown  two  enormous  stone  vases,  as 
two  of  the  six  water-pots.  De  Saulcy  maintains  tliat  they  are  as  old 
as  the  period  at  which  the  miracle  took  place.  There  are  some  ruins 
apparently  ancient,  and  among  them  is  shown  the  house  of  Simon  the 
Cauaanite. 

The  village  is  thus  described  by  a  recent  traveller  (Prof.  Stevens, 
S.  8.  Times,  Feb.  7,  1885) :  "  From  abroad  ridge  we  descended  into  a 
valley  green  with  orchards  and  planted  grain ;  and  beyond  it  at  the 
foot  of  a  long  slope  lies  Kefr  Keuna,  where  is  a  copious  spring. 
Groves  of  fruit  trees  fill  in  the  foreground  of  the  valley.  Ruins  that 
bear  the  name  Kenna  are  found  a  half  mile  or  more  to  the  northwest, 
a  still  earlier  site,  it  would  seem,  of  the  village." 

The  question  has  some  importance  from  its  bearing  on  the  length 
of  the  Lord's  journey  from  Bethabara  to  Cana,  and  so  on  the  position 
of  Bethabara.  If  the  marriage  was  at  Kaua  el  Jelil,  it  would  lengthen 
the  distance  some  eleven  miles,  or,  according  to  Conder,  some  eight 
miles,  and  make  more  time  necessary  than  the  narrative  implies 
(see  Pict.  Pal.,  300).  There  is  also  no  mention  by  the  Evangelists  of 
the  Lord's  ever  having  been  at  Sepphoris,  lying  six  miles  south  of  Kana 
el  Jelil,  through  which  He  must  often  have  passed  had  Cana  been 
there.  The  mention  of  Cana  in  Josephus  (Life,  16;  War,  i.  17.  5), 
points  to  Kefr  Kenna,  as  Kana  el  Jelil  would  have  been  out  of  his  way. 
The  question  cannot  be  considered  as  finally  settled,  but  the  words  of 
Tristram  have  much  force  :  "The  modern  name,  Kana  el  .lelil,  is 
closer  to  the  ancient;  yet  the  proximity  of  Kefr  Kenna  to  Nazareth, 
and  the  fact  of  its  being  on  the  direct  road  between  Nazareth  and 
Gennesareth,  seem  tome  to  far  outweigh  the  claims  of  the  northern  and 
more  remote  site."  Many  of  the  more  recent  explorers  and  writers 
are  disposed  to  accept  Kefr  Kenna  as  the  Cana  of  the  miracle.  (So 
Zeller,  Tristram,  Godet,  Eders.,  Farrar,  Dixon,  see  Qt.  St.  1878,  67; 
Qt.  St.  1883,  43.) 

The  marriage  festivities  among  the  Jews  usually  continued 
six  or  seven  days,  and  it  is  not  certain  upon  which  of  these 
days  the  miracle  was  wrought,  but  probably  toward  the  last. 
At  their  expiration  Jesus  went  with  His  mother  and  brethren 
and  disciples  to  Capernaum.  The  occasion  of  this  journey  is  not 
mentioned;  probably,  because  He  was  invited  by  Peter  and 
Andrew,  who  seem  now  to  have  resided  tli^i-e.  Wieseler  (Syn. 
169,  note)  thinks  that  the  family  had  already  left  Nazareth,  and 


Part   II.]  THE   VISIT   AT   CAPERNAUM.  165 

settled  at  Capernaum,  or  now  did  so.  (So  Tholuck,  Ewald.) 
Friedlieb  (191)  suggests  that,  as  the  Passover  was  now  not  dis- 
tant, they  might  have  desired  to  join  a  party  of  pilgrims  going 
up  to  the  feast  from  that  city.  Pressense  infers  from  Luke  iv. 
23,  that  He  must  have  wrought  some  miracles  there  at  this 
time,  and  Godet  places  at  this  time  the  miraculous  draught  of 
fishes,  and  the  calling  of  the  four  disciples  (Luke  v.  1  If.).  But 
the  fact  that  He  did  not  remain  there  many  days,  is  mentioned 
as  indicating  that  His  public  ministry  had  not  yet  begun.  There 
is  no  intimation  that  He  taught,  or  made  any  public  manifesta- 
tion of  Himself  while  at  Capernaum.  Weiss  (i.  386)  says:  "It 
is  incomprehensible  how,  not  only  the  beginning  of  Jesus'  public 
ministry,  but  also  the  calling  of  the  disciples,  should  be  placed 
in  these  'not  many  days.'  "  Almost  all  harmonists  agree  in  this, 
that  His  public  work  in  Galilee  did  not  begin  till  a  later  period. 
Probably  His  time  was  spent  in  private  intercourse  with  His 
disciples.  Lightfoot  (iii.  44),  who  makes  four  months  to  inter- 
vene between  the  temptation  and  the  first  Passover,  supposes 
Him  to  have  spent  this  interval  in  a  "  perambulation  of  Galilee." 
Of  this  there  is  no  hint  in  the  narrative.  As  the  Passover  drew 
nigh.  He  went  up  to  Jerusalem.  Whether  the  disciples  accom- 
panied Him  is  not  stated;  but  as  they  would  naturally  attend 
the  feast,  and  as  afterward  they  are  found  with  Him  (John  ii. 
22),  we  infer  that  they  did  so. 


PART  III. 


THE  JUD^AN  MINISTRY. 

The  cleansing  of  the  Temple  may  be  regarded  as  the  first 
step  in  the  Lord's  Judiiean  work,  the  first  public  manifestation 
of  Himself  before  the  rulers  and  the  people.  All  that  He  had 
done  since  His  baptism  to  this  time  was  in  its  nature  prepara- 
tory ;  one  miracle  He  had  wrought  at  Cana,  but  it  was  in  a  small 
family  circle,  and  there  is  no  likehhood  that  it  had  been  heard  of 
at  Jerusalem  ;  it  was  not  for  the  people  at  large,  but  for  His 
little  body  of  believers. 

It  is  ever  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  Lord  was  the 
Messiah,  and  it  is  this  Messianic  relation  to  the  nation  that  de- 
termines the  character  of  the  first  stage  of  His  ministry.  Had  he 
come  simply  as  a  teacher  or  a  prophet,  He  would  not  have  waited 
for  any  national  acceptance,  but  would,  like  the  Baptist,  have 
entered  at  once  upon  His  work.  But  He  came  to  do  the  work 
of  the  Messiah,  not  that  of  a  simple  teacher  or  prophet.  The 
rulers  were  to  recognize  in  Him  the  Son  of  David,  the  King, 
the  Representative  of  God  in  His  theocratic  administration, 
whom  all  were  to  honor  and  obey  (Matt.  xxi.  37).  Whether  He 
knew,  when  He  began  His  ministry,  that  the  rulers  would  reject 
Him,  we  cannot  say  ;  but  even  if  this  was  known  to  Him,  His 
first  act  must  be  to  present  Himself  to  them,  that  their  feelings 
toward  Him  might  be  publicly  expressed.  Till  this  was  done, 
and  His  rejection  made  morally  certain,  He  could  not  begin  His 
work  of  gathering  disciples,  and  of  separating  them  from  the  dis- 
believing with  reference  to  the  founding  of  His  church.  What 
was  due  at  this  stage,  was  to  give  sufficient  proof  by  word  and 
work  that  He  was  sent  of  God,  their  Messiah;  then  it  was  for 
the  nation  in  its  representatives  to  seek  Him  out,  and  be  taught 
of  Him  how  the  purpose  of  God  in  Him  was  to  be  fulfilled. 

(1G7) 


168  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  111. 

Tliat  the  rulers  had  the  right,  and,  indeed,  were  in  duty- 
bound  to  demand  proof  of  His  Messianic  claims,  the  Lord  Himself 
declared  (John  v.  31).  This  proof  was  threefold.  1.  The  testi- 
mony of  the  Baptist  (John  v.  33).  This  was  to  the  Deputation  sent 
from  Jerusalem  to  inquire  as  to  his  authority  to  institute  such 
a  rite,  and  what  was  the  moaning  of  it  ;  and  his  answers  to  their 
questions  could  not  leave  them  in  doubt  that  he  believed  the 
Messiah  to  have  already  come. 

2.  The  testimony  of  the  Father  from  whom  He  received 
power  to  do  His  works  (John  v.  36).  Thus  Nicodemus  said, 
"  No  man  can  do  these  miracles  that  thou  doest,  except  God  be 
with  him." 

3.  The  prophetic  testimony  given  to  Him  in  the  Scriptures  : 
"  They  are  they  which  testify  of  me  "  (verse  39).  To  these  may 
be  added  the  truth  of  His  words,  the  conformity  of  His  teachings 
to  all  that  God  had  revealed  in  the  Law  and  the  prophets. 

_  The  first  public  act  of  the  Lord  —  the  cleansing  of  the  tem- 
ple —  was  not  so  much  in  proof  of  His  Messianic  claims,  as  an 
assertion  of  them.  It  was  an  act  that  had  a  twofold  bearing; 
on  tlieone  side  it  asserted  His  prerogative  as  the  Son  to  preserve 
in  purity  the  worship  appointed  of  His  Father,  and  on  the  other 
it  was  a  severe  rebuke  to  the  priests  and  rulers.  They  had 
desecrated  and  defiled  the  holy  House.  He  will  reassert  its 
sanctity  and  purify  it.  This  act,  done  at  the  most  solemn  and 
generally  attended  of  all  the  feasts,  and  before  the  assembled 
multitudes,  did  not  leave  any  in  ignorance  that  one  had  come 
with  higher  claims,  at  least,  than  belonged  to  a  teacher,  or  even  to 
a  prophet. 

The  proof  that  He  gave  at  this  feast  of  His  Divine  mission 
was  in  the  miracles  which  He  wrought.  "Many  believed  in 
His  name  when  they  saw  the  miracles  which  He  did."  (R.  V., 
"  signs.")  It  is  not  said  of  what  nature  were  these  signs,  or  how 
many;  they  were  such,  as  it  pleased  Him  to  give,  and  were  suf- 
ficient to  convince  all  willing  to  be  convinced  that  He  came  from 
God,  and  to  prepare  them  to  hear  His  words  of  truth.  But  the 
faith  begotten  by  the  mere  signs  did  not  rest  on  that  sense  of 
spiritual  need  and  perception  of  spiritual  truth  which  alone  give 
a  solid  and  permanent  basis  of  discipleship,  and  therefore  He 
could  not  trust  Himself  to  them  (verses  23-25). 


Part  Iir.]  THE  JUD^^AN  MINISTRY.  169 

As  none  of  the  rulers  or  leaders  acknowledge  Him,  or,  per- 
haps, seek  Him  out,  except  the  doubting  Nicodemus,  He  leaves 
the  city,  and  begins  somewhere  in  the  province  the  work  of  bap;^ 
tizing.  This  work  He  performed  by  the  hands  of  His  disciples. 
All  this  is  in  harmony  with  His  position  as  one  waiting  for  the 
recognition  of  the  nation.  In  all  that  He  does  during  this  period, 
there  is  no  act  looking  forward  to  the  abrogation  of  the  Mosaic 
institutions,  and  to  the  formation  of  a  church  on  a  new  founda- 
tion. He  does  not,  so  far  we  know,  go  about  preaching  in  the 
synagogues.  He  works  no  new  miracles.  Although  assisted  in 
His  baptismal  work  by  the  few  who  early  discerned  in  Him  the 
Messiah,  He  seems  to  have  organized  no  body  of  disciples,  and 
to  have  done  nothing  that  indicated  a  purpose  to  gather  out  a 
few  from  the  nation  at  large.  It  was  not  for  Him  at  this  early 
stage  to  take  any  step  that  pointed  to  His  rejection  by  the  na- 
tion. It  was  the  time  of  their  trial,  and  their  treatment  of  Him 
would  indicate  what  His  future  acts  should  be.  The  whole 
Judsean  ministry  was  an  appeal  to  the  people,  and  primarily  to 
the  rulers,  to  receive  Him  as  the  Messiah. 

Passover,  Apeil  11-17,   780.     A.  D.  27. 

At  this  feast  Jesus  with  a  scourge  drives  out  of  the  temple 
the  sellers  of  animals  for  sacrifice,  and  the  money-changers.    To    John  ii.  14-22. 
the  Jews,  demanding  His  authority  to  do  such  things,  He  re- 
plies  in   a   parable.    During  the   feast  He  works  miracles.     John  ii.  23-25. 
which  lead  many  to  believe  on  Him.     He  is  visited  at  night  by    John  iii.  1-21. 
Nicodemus,  to  whom  he  explains  the  nature  of  the  new  birth.    John  iii.  22. 
Afterward  He  departs  from  Jerusalem  into  the  land  of  Judaea, 
where  He  tarries  with  His  disciples,  and  they  baptize.  John  iv.  2. 

This  Passover,  according  to  Greswell  and  Lewin,  was  on  the 
9th  April,  to  McClellan,  the  10th.  Friedlieb  makes  it  to  have 
been  on  the  11th.  We  follow  the  latter.  If  the  Lord's  bap- 
tism was,  as  we  have  supposed,  early  in  January,  between  the 
baptism  and  the  Passover  was  an  interval  of  some  three  months.' 
The  exact  length  of  this  interval  depends,  of  course,  upon  the 
date  of  the  baptism.  "With  this  Passover  His  public  ministry 
may  properly  be  said  to  begin. 

This  purification  of  the  temple  is  plainly  a  different  one  to 


iPaschale  Chronicon,  70  days;  Friedlieb,  87  daj's;  Greswell,  G4  days. 
3 


170  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IlL 

that  mentioned  by  the  Synoptists  (Matt.  xxi.  12-16;  Mark  xi. 
15-19;  Luke  xix.  45-48).  This  occurred  at  the  beginning, 
that  at  the  end,  of  His  ministry.  The  act,  in  all  its  essential 
outward  features,  must  have  been  the  same;  but  its  significance 
\aried  with  the  time.  The  point  of  its  repetition  will  be  con- 
sidered when  the  synoptical  account  comes  before  us.  As  now 
performed,  it  was  a  plain  and  open  avowal  of  His  Divine  au- 
thority, and  a  public  reproof  of  the  wickedness  of  the  priests  and 
rulers  who  permitted  His  Father's  house  to  be  made  a  house  of 
merchandise.  Nothing  could  have  brought  Him  more  pubhcly 
before  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  and  the  multitudes  who 
thronged  to  the  feast,  than  this  act,  nor  have  shown  more 
distinctly  the  nature  and  extent  of  His  claims.  Although  He 
does  not  name  Himself  the  Messiah,  He  could  not  be  classed  as 
a  reformer  of  ecclesiastical  abuses  merely.  He  was  the  Son  of 
God,  jealous  of  His  Father's  honor,  and  to  whom  it  especially 
belonged  to  see  that  His  courts  were  not  defiled.  It  is  said  by 
Edersheim  (i.  38):  "  With  this  first  bold  purgation  of  the  temple, 
a  deadly  feud  between  Jesus  and  the  Jewish  authorities  had 
begun." 

As  the  chief  sacrifice,  that  of  the  Paschal  Lamb,  was  offered 
on  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  it  is  probable  that  this  purification 
took  place  before  that  day.  Although  the  act  must  have  drawn 
to  Him  popular  attention,  and  awakened  general  inquiry  who  He 
was,  no  hostile  measures  seem  to  have  been  taken  at  this  time  by 
the  Jewish  authorities.  They  asked  for  a  sign  (ii.  18)  as  a 
voucher  for  His  Divine  commission,  which  He  declined  to  give, 
and  answered  them  in  an  enigmatical  manner.  Still  He  wrought 
afterward  during  the  feast  miracles  which  caused  many  to  be- 
lieve in  Him.  Of  the  nature  of  these  miracles  nothing  is  said; 
probably  they  were  miracles  of  heahng.  But  their  faith  resting 
merely  upon  the  exhibitions  of  power  which  they  saw,  not  upon 
any  perceptions  of  the  moral  character  of  His  works,  He  did  not 
commit  Himself  to  them,  or  enter  into  any  intimate  relations  with 
them,  as  with  His  disciples  from  Galilee.  But  in  Nicodemus, 
whom  Lightfoot  calls  "one  of  the  judges  of  the  great  San- 
liedriu,"  —  a^x<^v  —  and  Godet,  "one  of  the  lay  members," 
He  found  one  in  whom  were  the  germs  of  a  true  faith,  and  to 


Part  1T1.1  CLEANSING  OF   THE  TEMPLE.  171 

whom  He  could  reveal  Himself  not  only  through  v/ork  but 
through  word.  CThe  subject  of  His  teaching  was  the  nature  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  and  how  men  were  to  enter  into  it>  This 
conception  of  the  kingdom,  involving  the  gift  of  a  new  life  from 
the  Messiah  as  the  second  Adam,  was  one  that  the  Lord  could 
not  then  fully  unfold,  but  which  lies  as  the  source  of  all  His  sub- 
sequent teachings.  That  Nicodemus  should  come  secretly  by 
night  shows  that  there  was,  even  now,  among  the  priests  and 
rulers  with  whom  he  had  most  intercourse,  a  feeling  of  dislike  to 
Jesus,  and  that  some  degree  of  odium  attached  to  all  who  were 
known  to  visit  Him.  Some  infer  from  the  plural,  "  We  know," 
that  Nicodemus  came  as  the  representative  of  others  in  the  San- 
hedrin.  If  John,  the  Evangelist,  had  a  house  in  the  city,  as 
some  think,  the  conversation  may  have  been  in  his  presence. 

After  the  feast  was  over,  Jesus  leaving  the  city,  went  into 
some  part  of  the  territory  adjacent,  and  began  to  baptize.  Here 
several  questions  meet  us:  How  early  did  His  baptismal  work 
begin  ?  How  long  did  it  continue  ?  Where  was  it  carried  on  ? 
What  was  its  significance  ? 

When  did  it  begin  ?  The  only  mark  of  time  we  have 
is  in  the  words,  "after  these  things," — juerd  ravra — after 
the  events  of  the  Passover  (John  iii.  22).  This  phrase, 
according  to  the  Evangelist's  usage,  permits  a  considerable 
interval  of  time  to  have  elapsed.  "The  sequence  is  not 
immediate;"  (Alford,  in  loco,  see  v.  1;  vi.  1;  vii.  1.)  If 
we  suppose  an  interval  of  some  weeks  between  the  Passover 
and  the  beginning  of  His  baptismal  work,  how  and  where 
was  the  time  spent?  According  to  Lichtenstein  (157),  He 
now  returned  to  Galilee  with  His  relatives  and  disciples,  and 
lived  there  in  retirement  till  the  late  autumn  —  from  April 
to  October,  —  the  disciples  going  to  their  own  homes.  At  this 
time  He  reassembled  them,  and  going  into  Judaea,  began  to  bap- 
tize. There  is,  perhaps,  in  this  nothing  intrinsically  improbable, 
but  there  are  no  indications  in  the  narrative  of  such  a  return  to 
Galilee,  and  no  convincing  arguments  for  it.  The,  impression 
made  by  the  Evangelist's  statement  is  that  the  Lord  remained 
at  Jerusalem  or  in  its  neighborhood  for  a  time,  longer  or  shorter, 
after  the  Passover,  and  then,  going  to  some  place  He  had 
selected  in  "the  land  of  Judsea  "  —  the  country  as  distinguished 


l72  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  III 

from  the  city  —  began  there  to  baptize.  This  was  sometime 
in  the  early  summer  of  780  ;  more  definitely,  we  cannot  speak. 

How  long  did  His  baptism  continue  ?  The  only  datum  we 
have  is  the  word  of  the  Lord  after  His  baptismal  work  had 
ceased,  and  while  in  Samaria  on  His  way  to  Galilee:  "There 
are  yet  four  months,  and  then  cometh  the  harvest."  This  saying, 
vvhich  will  be  considered  later,  has  been  understood  by  some  as 
showing  that  the  harvest  was  already  ripe,  and  the  time,  therefore, 
May;  by  others,  that  four  months  must  pass  before  the  harvest 
began,  and  the  time,  therefore,  December.  If  we  take  the  for- 
mer date,  His  baptism,  if  begun  immediately  after  the  feast,  con- 
tinued only  some  four  or  five  weeks;  if  the  latter,  it  continued  till 
December,  several  months.  That  it  was  brief,  it  is  said,  appears 
from  the  manner  in  which  one  of  John's  disciples  speaks  (John  iii. 
26):  "  Behold  the  same  baptizetb,  and  all  come  to  Him,"  as  if  Ilis 
baptism  had  but  recently  begun.  But  it  is  not  the  announcement 
of  the  fact  that  He  baptized  as  if  it  were  a  new  thing,  that  is 
emphatic,  since  what  follows  —  '-all  come  to  Him," — clearly  im- 
plies some  considerable  period  of  activity.  The  complaint  is  that 
He,  to  whom  John  had  borne  witness,  should  also  baptize.  "He 
baptizeth,"  as  if  becoming  John's  rival.^ 

Where  was  this  work  carried  on  ?  All  agree  that  it  was 
somewhere  in  tlie  province  of  Judaea.  Some  suppose  Him  to 
have  gone  to  the  Jordan,  or  to  some  stream  running  into  it. 
(So  Friedlieb,  Thomson,  Weiss.)  Others  think  that  He  was  not 
confined  to  one  place,  but  went  from  place  to  place,  baptizing 
wherever  He  found  water;  and  that  Ho  visited  in  southern 
Judaea,  Hebron,  and  the  chief  cities,  going  as  far  south  as 
Beersheba.  (So  Sepp,  Godet )  Others  infer  from  the  words 
(John  iv.  4),  "And  He  must  needs  go  throur;h  Samaria,"  that 
He  went  at  this  time  into  the  northern  part  of  Judaea.  (So 
Meyer.)  He  may  have  been  at  Wady  Farah,  some  six  miles  north- 
east of  Jerusalem,  whei'e  is  abundance  of  water.  (Baed.,  322. 
This  wady  will  soon  be  spoken  of  again.)     It  is  more  in  harmony 


1  Opinions  vary  much  as  to  the  length  of  the  Lord's  work  in  baptizing:  Norton,  Uvo  or 
three  weeks;  Greswell,  less  than  a  month;  McClcllan,  Caspari,  five  weeks:  Weiss,  seven 
months;  Godet,  eight  months.  Greswell  (ii.  215)  thinks  the  statement  that  there  \\as 
much  water  there,  "  a  proof  that  the  rainy  season  had  been  some  time  over,  and  water  was 
beginning  to  be  scarce,"  thus  showing  that  it  was  near  mid-summer.  Little  relianct 
can  be  placed  on  this. 


Part  III]  SITE  OF  ^NON.  173 

with  the  general  scope  of  His  Judsean  ministry  that  He  should 
have  continued  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  city,  but  the  place 
where  He  baptized  cannot  be  determined.  While  Jesus  was 
baptizing,  John  was  also  carrying  on  his  baptismal  work.  He 
had,  however,  left  the  Jordan  —  whether  before  or  after  the 
Passover  we  do  not  know  —  and  had  gone  to  jEnon.  Let  us 
inquire  here  where  it  is  to  be  found. 

^non  —  Aivwv  —  is  by  some  regarded  as  a  Chaldaic  plural,  meaning 
"fountains"  (T.  G.  Lex.,  sub  voce),  and  by  some  as  a  compound, 
"  dove-fountain  "  (so  Meyer).  It  is  doubtful  whether  it  denotes  here 
a  district,  or  a  village  in  wliich  were  springs  (Lightfoot)'  or  a  foun- 
tain near  a  village.  In  any  case  its  position  is  defined  by  saying  that 
it  was  "  near  to  Salim."  But  this  helps  us  little,  since  the  place  of 
this  Salim  is  also  undetermined.  Jerome  speaks  of  a  town  called  in 
his  day  Salem,  eight  Roman  miles  south  of  Scythopolis  or  Bethshean, 
where  the  ruins  of  a  palace  of  Melchizedek  were  shown.  He  also 
speaks  of  a  Salumias,  which  he  apparently  identifies  with  Salem,  as 
lying  in  the  plain  or  valley  of  the  Jordan.  Here  he  places  ^non, 
near  to  Salem  and  to  the  Jordan.  (Raumer,  143 ;  so  Edersheim,  i.  393 ; 
Caspari,  132;  Ebrard,  313.)  Here,  at  the  base  of  a  hill  at  the  side  of 
a  beautiful  spring,  is  a  saint's  tomb,  to  which  the  natives  have  given 
the  name  of  Sheik  Salim  (Van  der  Velde,  Mem.,  345).  But  Robinson, 
who  made  special  search  for  Salim  in  the  Jordan  valley,  found  no 
ruins,  and  no  trace  of  the  name.  He  considers  this  name  as  too  fre- 
quent to  be  taken  into  account,  and  regards  the  search  for  Salim  here 
as  fruitless  (iii.  398.  See  Drake,  Qt.  St.  1875,  33;  1874,  91).  It  is 
rightly  objected  by  Stevens  that  an  ^non  here  is  too  near  the  Jor- 
dan (Jour.  Bibl.  Lit.  and  Ex.  1883,  p.  130). 

Another  Salim  is  found  a  few  miles  east  of  Nablous,  and  some 
miles  north  from  this  Salim  a  ruined  village  called  ^non,  which  is 
believed  by  many  to  be  the  same  place  mentioned  by  the  Evangelist, 
because  of  copious  springs  of  water  near  it  on  the  Wady  Far'ah.  All 
travellers  agree  in  praising  the  beauty  and  fruitfulness  of  this  valley, 
through  which  a  jiermanent  stream  runs  to  the  Jordan,  and  in  which 
are  many  broad  meadows,  expansions  well  fitted  for  the  accommoda- 
tion of  such  as  might  come  to  be  baptized.  Robinson  says:  "No- 
where in  Palestine  had  I  seen  such  noble  brooks  of  water  "  (iii.  305 ; 
see  Stevens,  134). 

It  is  here  in  this  valley  that  many  moderns  find  the  place  of 
John's  baptism  (Tristram,  Conder,  ^McGarvpy.  Stevens,  Porter,  Wilson, 
Schaff,  Henderson).     But  to  this  there  are  two  objections;  one  is  the 


174  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  III. 

distance  of  the  ruia  ^Enon  from  Salem  some  seven  miles,  and  from 
Wady  Far'ah  some  four  miles.  (Conder,  II.  B.)  Of  ^non,  Rob- 
inson says:  "  Here  is  precisely  the  name,  but  unfortunately  there  is 
no  Salem  near,  nor  a  drop  of  water."  Stevens  (108),  who  defends 
this  site,  feels  the  force  of  this  objection, and  suggests  a  modern  trans- 
fer from  some  earlier  site.  Another  objection  is,  that  it  makes  John 
to  have  been  baptizing  in  Samaria.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that 
John,  the  preacher  of  the  Law,  could  have  entered  Samaritan  terri- 
tory for  any  such  purpose,  when,  at  a  later  period,  the  Lord  forbade 
the  Twelve  to  enter  into  any  of  its  cities  (Matt.  x.  5;  xv,  24).  It 
was  not  to  be  expected  that  the  Jews  would  follow  John  there,  nor 
would  thi  .Samaritans  accept  baptism  at  his  hands.  It  is  said  by 
Weiss,  "  It  is  perfectly  impossible  that  John  can  have  taken  up  his 
station  in  Samaria"  (John  iv.  9;  Luke  xvii.  18).  Nor  is  there  any 
trace  in  the  conversation  of  the  Samaritan  woman  or  of  her  people 
with  the  Lord,  that  there  had  been  any  such  ministry  among  them. 
On  these  grounds  it  is  said  by  Meyer  in  loco :  "  ^non  must  have  been 
in  Judaea,  not  in  Samaria."  (So  Wieseler,  Luthardt,  Godet,  Eders- 
heim,  McClellan.  As  to  the  relation  of  the  Jews  to  the  Samaritans, 
see  Edersheim,  398;  Hamburger,  Talmud,  1068).  The  reasoning  of 
Stevens  on  this  point  is  not  satisfactory.  If  the  Baptist  had  no 
special  mission  to  the  Samaritans,  as  he  most  plainly  had  not,  why 
go  to  Samaria  where  the  Jews,  to  whom  he  had  a  special  mission, 
would  not  follow  him?  That  the  Lord  crossed  Samaria  on  His  way 
to  and  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem  on  one  occasion,  and  spent  two 
days  there  teaching,  does  not  show  that  the  work  of  the  Baptist  was 
among  them. 

If  we  cannot  find  ^non  in  either  of  the  two  places  already  named, 
we  must  look  for  it  in  some  other  direction.  AVas  it  east  of  the  Jor- 
dan, or  somewhere  in  the  interior  of  Judsea?  That  it  was  not  east  of 
the  Jordan,  appears  from  John  iii.  26 :  "He  that  was  with  thee  beyond 
Jordan,"  thus  contrasting  ^non  with  his  former  place  of  baptism 
at  Bethabara,  and  implying  that  John  was  now  on  the  west  side. 
That  he  was  not  in  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  and  near  the  river, 
appears  from  the  description,  "because  there  was  much  water"  — 
many  springs  —  which,  in  that  case,  would  have  been  superfluous. 
Weiss,  i.  34,  supposes  a  contrast  meant  between  the  land  of  Juda-a 
and  .(Enon,  vs.  22-23  as  if  the  latter  were  not  in  Judsea;  but  this  is 
forcing  the  passage.  The  contrast  is  not  local,  but  personal.  Some 
would  find  ^non  in  Southern  Judtiea.  Wieseler  (Syn.  248),  refers  to 
Joshua,  XV.  32,  where  among  the  cities  of  Judah  on  the  borders 
of  Edom,  mention   is  made  of   Shilhim,   Ain,   and  Riramon.     (See 


Part  III.]  SITE  OF  yENON.  175 

Riehm  under  Ain.)  Ain  and  Rimmon  being  places  near  each  other, 
were  in  time  blended  as  one  under  the  name  En-Rimmon,  now 
known  by  the  name  er  Rumamiin,  about  twelve  miles  north  of 
Beersheba  (Tristram,  B.  P.  26;  Conder,  H.  B.,  so  Godet,  Pressense). 
Lichtenstein  finds  ^non  in  Wady  el  Khulil,  a  little  northwest 
of  Hebron;  Sepp,  in  Beit  ^non  a  little  north  of  Hebron;  Ewald, 
in  the  southeast  of  JudiT^a;  Luthardt,  in  south  Judiea;  Light- 
foot,  "near  the  Essenes  in  the  Judaean  wilderness."  To  all  these 
sites  in  Southern  Judaea  the  general  objection  is  made,  that  as 
John  was  not  long  after  arrested  by  Herod,  he  must  have  been  bap- 
tizing somewhere  in  the  north,  and  in  or  near  Galilee,  and  so  brought 
under  his  jurisdiction,  and  that  here  ^non  must  be  sought."  Bar- 
clay finds  it  in  Wady  Farah,  six  miles  northeast  of  Jerusalem,  of 
which  he  speaks  as  having  the  most  copious  fountains  to  be  found  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem,  one  of  them  being  capable  of  driving 
several  mills  as  it  gushes  forth  from  the  earth;  but  it  is  intermittent. 
Below,  the  stream  is  called  the  Kelt,  emptying  into  the  Jordan  by 
Jericho.  Baedeker  mentions  Wady  Farah  as  "beautifully  green, 
and  containing  excellent  springs."  But  others  find  Barclay's  account 
of  the  copiousness  of  the  waters  exaggerated.  (So  Stevens.)  This 
site  has  not  found  much  acceptance.  Dixon  (Qt.  St.  1877)  puts 
^non  on  a  road  from  Jericho  to  Jerusalem.  That  John  was  within 
the  territory  of  Herod  when  arrested,  does  not  show  that  he  was  not 
at  this  earlier  time  engaged  in  baptizing  somewhere  in  Judaea.  If  the 
Lord's  work  was  now  limited  to  Judaea,  on  grounds  already  stated,  it 
was  fitting  that  John  should  have  carried  on  his  work  in  His  vicinity, 
and  that  is  implied  in  the  narrative.  So  M.  and  M. :  "  ^non  and 
Salem  were  in  Juda\i,  so  that  Jesus  and  the  Baptist  were  at  this  time 
in  the  same  region  of  the  country."  Whether,  when  the  Lord  ceased 
to  baptize  and  went  into  Galilee,  John  ceased  his  work  in  Judaea, 
and  was  in  Galilee  at  the  time  of  his  arrest  some  months  later,  will  be 
considered  in  its  order. 

Among  so  many  discordant  opinions,  the  true  site  of  ^non  must 
be  left  undecided.  Most  agree  in  placing  it  on  the  west  side  of  the 
Jordan,  as  it  is  contrasted  (verse  2G)  with  John's  former  place  of  bap- 
tism at  Bethabara.  We  best  meet  the  scope  of  the  narrative  if  we 
suppose  that  Jesus  and  John  were  not  very  far  distant  from  each 
other,  and  both  in  Judaea. 


1  So  Lightfoot,  Friedlieb,  and  Erlershoim,  hut  they  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  place. 
Friedlieb  (178)  accepting  the  statement  of  Juroiue,  phices  ^non  in  Perisa  or  (ialilee; 
Edersheim  (i.  393)  thinks  this  most  piobal>lc.  But  a?!  some  interval  of  time  may  have 
elapsed  betvpeen  the  cessation  of  his  baptism  at  ifSnon  and  his  arrest,  the  argument  has 
little  force. 


176  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  111, 

We  have  still  to  ask  what  was  the  significance  of  the  Lord's  bap- 
tism ? 

With  the  coming  of  Jesus  to  enter  upon  His  work,  it  might  have 
been  supposed  that  the  mission  of  the  Baj^tist  would  cease,  its  end 
being  accomplished.  As  we  have  seen,  however,  it  did  not  wholly 
cease,  for  he  had  not  brought  the  nation  to  repentance ;  but  it  changed 
its  form.  And  it  is  probably  from  this  point  of  view  that  we  are  to 
explain  the  departure  of  John  from  the  Jordan  to  ^non.  And  as 
the  place  of  baptism  was  changed,  so  also  in  some  degree  the  rite. 
His  baptism  could  no  more  have  a  general  and  indefinite  reference  to 
one  still  to  come.  (See  Acts  xix.  4,  "Saying  unto  the  people  that 
they  should  believe  on  Him  which  should  come  after  him.")  Having 
declared  Jesus  of  Nazareth  to  be  the  Messiah,  the  undefined  Messianic 
hopes  of  the  nation  were  now  to  be  concentrated  upon  Him.  All  the 
teachings  and  labors  of  the  Baptist  pointed  to  Him,  and  all  tended  to 
prepare  the  people  to  receive  Him.  Whether  there  was  any  change 
in  the  baptismal  formula  may  be  doubted,  but  the  immediate  and 
personal  reference  to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  was  that  which  distinctively 
characterized  the  last  stage  of  John's  work,  and  explains  why  his 
baptism  still  continued. 

To  this  form  of  John's  ministry  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  at  its  begin- 
ning, corresponded.  The  former  had  borne  his  witness  to  Him,  and 
He  must  now  confirm  that  witness;  must  show  Himself  to  be  the 
Messiah  through  His  own  words  and  acts.  Before  the  priests  and 
the  people  He  asserted  His  Messianic  claims  by  the  purifying  of  the 
temple,  and  attested  them  by  the  miracles  He  subsec_iuently  wrought  at 
the  feast.  But  why  should  John  continue  to  baptize  ?  It  need  not 
be  said  that  if  the  rulers  and  people  had  responded  to  his  preaching  of 
repentance,  and  thus  been  prepared  to  receive  the  Lord,  he  would  not 
have  continued  this  work.  But  it  was  an  indisijensabk  condition  to 
the  reception  of  the  Christ,  the  Holy  One  of  God,  that  sin  should  be 
repented  of  and  put  away.  Upon  this  John  had  insisted  in  liis 
preaching,  "  Repent,  for  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand."  But  this 
preaching  and  this  baptism,  both  pointing  to  repentance,  were  no  less 
important  now  that  the  Messiah  had  actually  come.  Without  holi- 
ness of  heart  they  could  not  receive  Him,  could  not  even  discern  Him 
as  the'  Messiah.  John  had  already  baptized  many  into  the  hope  of 
His  coming,  but  others  had  equal  need  to  be  baptized  into  the  i-eality 
of  it. 

We  can  now  see  why  John  should  have  continued  baptizing  after 
the  Lord  came,  and  why  Jesus  should  Himself,  through  His  discijiles, 
also   baptize.     It   was  not  enougli  that   He    had    personally    come 


Part  III.]  THE   SITE   OF   ^NON.  177 

Would  the  Jews  receive  Him  ?  None  could  do  so  but  the  repentant. 
All  those  that,  with  hearts  conscious  of  guilt,  both  personal  and  na- 
tional, and  truly  penitent,  were  ' '  waiting  for  the  consolation  of 
Israel,"  were  willing  to  be  baptized,  confessing  their  sins;  but  the 
unrepentant,  the  unbelieving,  the  self-righteous,  all  who  justified 
themselves,  rejected  the  rite  (Luke  vii.  29,  30).  Hence  it  was  a  most 
decisive  test  of  the  spiritual  state  of  the  people.  And  tried  by  this 
test,  the  nation,  as  such,  was  condemned.  Neither  the  baptism  of 
John,  nor  that  of  the  Lord,  brought  it  to  repentance.  True,  great 
numbers  went  at  first  to  John,  and  afterward  many  resorted  to  Jesus, 
and  were  baptized;  but  these  were  the  common  ^^eople,  those 
without  reputation  or  authority.  Those  who  ruled  in  all  religious 
matters  and  gave  direction  to  public  opinion,  the  priests,  the  scribes 
the  Pharisees,  the  Sadducees,  and  the  rich  and  influential,  held  them- 
selves almost  wholly  aloof.  Hence,  as  regarded  the  nation  at  large, 
John's  baptismal  work  failed  of  its  end.  The  true  and  divinely  ap- 
pointed representatives  of  the  people,  the  ecclesiastical  authorities 
who  sat  in  Moses'  seat,  were  not  brought  to  repentance,  and,  there- 
fore, could  not  receive  the  Messiah. 

Thus  Jesus  began  His  work  as  the  Baptizer  with  water  unto  re- 
pentance. It  was  this  baptism  that  gave  to  His  Judaean  ministry  its 
distinctive  character.  It  was  an  attempt  to  bring  the  nation,  as 
headed  up  in  its  ecclesiastical  rulers,  to  repentance.  Had  these  come 
to  Him  or  to  John  confessing  their  sins.  His  way  would  have  been 
prepared,  and  He  could  then  have  proceeded  to  teach  them  the  true 
nature  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  and  prepare  them  for  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  as  they  had  "frustrated  the  counsel  of  God 
within  themselves,  being  not  baptized  of  John"  ("rejected  for 
themselves  the  counsel  of  God,"  R.  V.),  so  they  continued  to  frus- 
trate it  by  rejecting  the  work  in  which  John  and  Jesus  were  jointly 
engaged. 

In  the  act  of  baptizing  Jesus  personally  took  no  part.  It 
was  done  by  His  disciples.  The  names  of  these  disciples  are  not 
mentioned,  but  they  were  doubtless  the  same  whose  names  had 
been  already  mentioned  (John,  ch.  i.),  and  who  came  with  Him 
to  the  Passover  from  Galilee  As  the  former  disciples  of  John, 
and  perhaps  his  assistants,  this  rite  was  not  new  to  them.  Hav- 
ing, also,  been  for  some  time  in  company  with  Jesus,  they  were 
prepared  by  His  teachings  to  understand  the  meaning  of  the  ser- 
vice He  required  from  them.     As  yet,  however,  their  relations 


178  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  Hi. 

to  Him  were  much  the  same  as  their  former  relations  to  John, 
and  very  unhke  what  they  afterward  became. 

These  contemporaneous  baptismal  labors  of  the  Lord  and  of 
John  present  many  interesting  questions,  but  most  of  them  lie 
out  of  the  pale  of  our  inquiry.  As  the  former  did  not  Himself 
baptize,  it  is  a  question  how  His  time  was  spent.  Probably  He 
taught  the  crowds  that  came  to  His  baptism,  but  there  is  no  hint 
that  He  healed  the  sick,  or  wrought  any  miracles.  We  can 
scarce  doubt  that  He  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  attend  the  two 
great  feasts  during  this  period,  that  of  Pentecost  and  of  Taber- 
nacl'es,  and  here  He  must  have  come  more  or  less  into  contact 
with  the  priests  and  Pharisees.  It  does  not  appear,  however, 
that  He  went  about  from  place  to  place  to  teach,  or  that  He 
taught  in  any  of  the  synagogues.  Still  it  is  not  improbable  that 
before  He  began  to  baptize,  or  at  intervals  during  His  labors. 
He  may  have  visited  many  parts  of  Judaea,  and  have  noted  and 
tested  the  spiritual  condition  of  the  people.  It  may  be,  also, 
that  at  this  time  He  formed  those  friendships  of  which  we  later 
find  traces,  as  that  with  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  and  that  with 
Mary  and  Martha. 

December,  780  — March,  781.     A.  D.  27-28. 

The   Pharisees  hearing  that  Jesus   baptized  more  dis-  John  ill.  25,  26. 
ciples  than  John,  He  gives  up  his  work  of  baptizing  and  John  iv.  1-3. 
goes  back  to  Galilee.     The   Baptist,  in  reply  to  the  com-  John  iii.  27-36. 
plaints  of  his  disciples,  bears  a  fresh  testimony  to  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah.     Jesus  takes  His  way  to  Galilee,  through  John  iv.  4-42. 
Samaria,  and  abides  there  two  days  teaching,  and  many 
believe  on  Him.     Upon  reaching  Galilee  His  disciples  de- 
part   to    their    respective    homes.     He    is    received   with  John  iv.  43-45. 
honor  by  the  Galileans,  because  of  the  works  which  He 
did  at  Jerusalem  at  the  feast.     Coming  to  Cana,  He  heals  John  iv.  46-54. 
the  nobleman's  son  at  Capernaum.     He  afterward  lives  in 
retirement  till  called  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem  at  the  follow-  John  v.  1. 
ing  feast. 

The  first  point  that  meets  us  here  is,  why  did  the  Lord  cease 
to  baptize  ?  An  answer  very  generally  given  is,  that  the  Baptist 
was  at  the  time  cast  into  prison  at  the  instigation  of  the  Phari 
sees,  and  that  He,  fearing  a  like  arrest,  withdrew  for  safety  from 
Judsea  into  Galilee.     This  point,  as  one  of  much  importance  in 


Part  III.]  IMPRISONMENT   OF  JOHN.  179 

determining  the  order  of  the  events  following,  must  be  care- 
fully considered. 

It  has  been  said  by  some  that  the  Baptist  was  twice  arrested.' 
This  rests  upon  the  supposed  force  of  the  verb  "  was  delivered  up," 
irapedddT],  (this  is  rendered,  A.  V.  Matt.  iv.  12,  "was  cast  into  prison," 
but  in  the  margin  "delivered  up";  in  Mark  i.  14,  "was  put  in 
prison";  the  rendering  in  the  R.  V.  is  in  botli  cases  "delivered  up.") 
This  delivering  up  was,  they  say,  not  his  imprisonment  by  Herod,  but 
a  delivery  of  him  by  Herod  to  the  Sanhedrin  soon  after  the  visit  of 
the  Deputation.  From  this  imprisonment,  however,  he  was  soon  re- 
leased, and  later  was  imprisoned  by  Herod. 

This  theory  of  two  arrests  seems  to  have  been  devised  to  explain 
the  difficulty  of  the  common  interpretation,  that  Jesus  going  to  Gali- 
lee immediately  after  John's  arrest  should  then  begin  His  work  under 
the  very  eye  of  Herod.  But  this  view  of  two  arrests  of  the  Baptist  has 
no  recent  advocates. 

The  last  notice  we  have  of  John  as  engaged  in  his  baptismal 
work,  is  that  given  by  John  iii.  23 :  while  Jesus  was  baptizing  some- 
where in  Judasa,  John  was  baptizing  at  ^non.  When  did  his  work  at 
^non  cease,  and  why  did  it  cease?  It  is  held  by  many  that  it  ceased 
before  Jesus  left  Judaea  (John  iv.  3),  sometime  in  the  summer  or 
autumn  of  780,  and  ceased  because  he  was  then  imprisoned  by  Herod." 
It  is  admitted  that  the  Evangelist  says  nothing  of  John's  impris- 
onment as  the  cause  of  the  Lord's  leaving  Judaea;  his  language 
rather  gives  the  impression  that  John  was  still  active. 

The  ground  on  which  his  imprisonment  is  here  asserted,  is  a  chron- 
ological rather  than  an  exegetical  one.  As  the  Lord  now  went  from 
JudiTBa  into  Galilee,  it  is  said  that  this  departure  into  Galilee  must  be 
the  same  as  that  in  Matt.  iv.  12,  Mark  i.  14,  Luke  iv.  14;  and  there- 
fore we  must  put  the  Baptist's  imprisonment  at  this  time.  Assuming 
that  this  must  be  so,  the  inference  is  drawn  from  Jolm  iv.  1,  tliat  the 
Lord's  motive  in  leaving  Judaea  was  fear  of  the  Pharisees;  He  was 
afraid  of  a  like  imprisonment.  Thus  Lightfoot  says:  "Herod  had 
imprisoned  John  the  Baptist  under  pretense  of  his  growing  too  pop- 
ular. Our  Saviour,  understanding  this,  and  that  the  Sanhedrin  had 
heard  of  the  increase  of  His  discii)les,  withdrew  too  from  Judaea 
into  Galilee,  that  He  might  be  more  remote  from  that  kind  of  thunder- 
bolt John  had  been  struck  with."     But  here  we  meet  some  difficul- 


1  So  Pound,  ii.  137.     Wies.,  Syn.  223,  refers  to  the  old  harmonist,  Lamy,  as  pre- 
senting the  same  view. 

2  So  in  general,  with  some  differences  as  to  the  time,  Rob.,  Fried.,  Gard.,  McClel., 
Eders.,  Ell.,  and  others. 


180  THE   LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD,  [Part  III 

ties;  if  the  Baptist  had  been  arrested  by  Herod,  he  must  have  been 
in  Herod's  territory,  in  Persea  or  Galilee,  but  we  have  no  proof  that 
^non  was  within  it;  and  if  it  was  not  in  Peraea  or  Galilee  but  in 
Judaea,  John  must  have  given  up  baptizing  there  before  the  Lord 
ceased  His  baptismal  work,  which  is  not  implied  in  the  narrative, 
and  for  which  there  is  no  authority.  Some  suppose  that  John,  being 
in  territory  under  Roman  rule,  was  arrested  by  Pilate  at  Herod's 
request,  and  sent  into  Galilee ;  this  is  obviously  a  makeshiftj  for  there 
is  no  probability  that  Pilate,  who  did  not  love  Herod,  would  make 
himself  an  instrument  to  gratify  the  king's  personal  enmity. 

That  the  Pharisees  at  this  time  were  becoming  more  determined 
in  their  hostility  both  to  Jesus  and  John,  we  may  well  believe,  but 
that  they  now,  or  later,  instigated  Herod  to  arrest  the  Baptist,  is  not 
shown.  According  to  the  Synoptists  (Matt.  xiv.  3,  and  parallels)  it 
was  the  reproof  of  Herod  for  his  adulterous  marriage  with  his  broth- 
er's wife,  that  led  to  John's  arrest;  Josephus  ascribes  it  to  political 
motives,  but  nowhere  speaks  as  if  the  Pharisees  instigated  it.  If 
their  hostility  had  now  reached  this  stage,  and  they  had  caused  the 
Baptist's  arrest  through  Herod,  it  is  not  likely  that  they  would  have 
permitted  Jesus  to  carry  on  His  work  unmolested  in  Galilee  for  two 
years  when  they  had  such  a  convenient  tool  in  Herod  to  carry  out 
their  purjioses.  That  Jesus  did  not  fear  any  arrest  from  Herod,  is 
apparent  from  the  fact  that  He  now  goes  into  his  territory,  and 
moreover  takes  up  His  abode  in  the  near  vicinity  of  his  capital.  It 
seems  from  the  Synoptists,  that  it  was  not  till  the  death  of  the  Bap- 
tist that  Herod  heard  of  Jesus  (Matt.  xiv.  2,)  a  fact  which  clearly 
shows  that  up  to  this  time  the  Pharisees  had  not  sought  to  arouse  his 
hostility  to  Him,  and  that  he  had  not  known  of  Him  as  an  ally  of 
John's. 

Dismissing  then  as  groundless  the  statement  that  Jesus  left 
Judaea  through  fear  of  the  Pharisees  and  of  Herod,  what  was  the 
ground  of  His  action? 

The  words  of  the  Evangelist  are,  "When  the  Lord  knew  how 
the  Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  ("  was  making 
and  baptizing,"  R.  V.),  more  disciples  than  John;  He  left  Judaea  and 
departed  again  into  Galilee."  We  have  here  the  facts,  first,  that  Jesus 
baptized  more  disciples  than  John;  second,  that  this  was  known  to 
theJPharisees;  third,  that  Jesus,  knowing  that  this  was  known  to 
them,  left  Judaea.  The  inference  clearly  is,  though  not  exjiressed, 
that  the  greater  success  of  Jesus  was  offensive  to  the  Pharisees;  but 
that  it  led  them  to  any  overt  act  is  not  implied,  much  less  that  they 
then  procured  the  arrest  of  John,  and  that  Jesus,   through  fear  of 


Part  IIl.J  IMPRISONMENT  OF  JOHN.  181 

them,  went  into  Galilee.  The  Lord's  motive  seems  to  have  been  to 
avoid  any  hindrance  which  His  own  baptismal  work  might  put  in 
John's  way  through  the  misrepresentations  of  the  Pharisees.  Evi- 
dently the  jealousy  of  John's  disciples  was  awakened  by  the  greater 
popularity  of  the  Lord  (John  iii.  25),  and  this  gave  occasion  to  the 
enemies  of  both  to  stir  up  dissensions  between  their  respective  disciples. 
(So  Licht.,  Luthardt.)  It  is  to  be  noted  also,  that  those  who  came 
to  the  Lord's  baptism  were  not  of  the  rulers  and  priests,  or  of  the 
Pharisaic  party  (Luke  vii.  30),  so  that  it  failed  of  its  end  to  bring  the 
nation  in  its  chief  representatives  to  repentance. 

There  is  another  interpretation  of  the  Evangelist's  statement  which 
lays  the  stress  on  the  knowledge  which  the  Pharisees  had  of  the 
Lord's  baptismal  success.  The  Lord  knew  that  He  had  thus  been 
brought  sufficiently  into  prominence  to  make  it  plain  that  they  re- 
fused to  come  to  His  baptism,  and  so  rejected  Him  with  full  knowl- 
edge. Any  further  presentation  of  His  baptismal  work  could,  there- 
fore, be  of  no  profit. 

But  this  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  fact  of  the  growing 
Pharisaic  enmity.  The  increasing  influence  of  Jesus,  as  shown  by 
the  numbers  tluit  came  to  His  baptism,  only  brought  out  more 
strongly  the  envy  and  dislike  of  the  Pharisees,  and  confirmed  them 
in  their  hostility.  To  have  continued  His  work  could,  therefore, 
have  answered  no  good  end,  since  it  was  not  now  the  gathering  of  a 
body  of  disciples  around  Him  at  which  He  aimed,  but  the  repentance 
of  the  priests  and  leaders  of  the  people.  xVs  said  by  Weiss  (ii.  30, 
note) :  "It  is  in  no  way  indicated  that  Jesus  here  gathered  a  congre- 
gation around  Him;  that  is  contradicted  by  everything  we  hear  as  to 
His  baptismal  ministry  in  Judsea." 

We  conclude,  then,  that  in  John  iv.  1,  there  is  no  intimation 
that  the  Baptist's  work  had  ended,  but  rather  a  plain  intimation 
that  it  was  still  in  progress,  for  there  is  a  comparison  between 
them,  and  the  result  is,  that  Jesus  is  baptizing  more  than  John. 
By  M.  and  M.  it  is  said:  "We  regard  the  ministry  of  John  as  still 
enduring  at  the  period  to  which  this  verse  relates  " ;  and  by  Caspari, 
"John  was  still  at  liberty."  (So  Bengel,  Wics.,  Licht.,  Luthardt.) 
Greswell  (ii.  212),  who  admits  that  the  words  of  the  Evangelist  imply 
that,  when  Jesus  set  out  on  His  return  to  Galilee,  John  was  not  yet 
cast  into  prison,  supposes  that  before  he  reached  there  he  was  im- 
prisoned.  This,  however,  contradicts  the  Synoptists,  who  imply  that 
Jesus  was  in  Judaea  when  He  heard  of  John's  imprisonment,  and  that 
this  was  the  cause  of  His  departure  into  Galilee;   "Now  when  He 


182  THE   LIFE  OF  OUR   LORD.  [Part   111. 

heard  that  John  was  delivered  up,  He  withdrew  into  Galilee " 
(Matt.  iv.  12). 

We  give  the  following  arrangements  of  events:  1st,  of  most  har- 
monists. Soon  after  the  Passover,  Jesus  and  John  entered  upon  their 
baptismal  work  in  Judjea.  After  a  time  — longer  or  shorter —  John  is 
arrested  and  imprisoned ;  Jesus,  through  fear  of  a  like  arrest,  leaves 
Judtea  and  goes  to  Galilee,  and  begins  His  public  ministry  there; 
some  say  in  the  early  summer,  others  in  the  late  autumn. 

2d,  of  Lichtenstein.  After  the  Passover  Jesus  returns  to  Naza- 
reth; remains  there  in  retirement  till  the  late  summer,  perhaps  till 
feast  of  Tabernacles  in  October;  goes  into  Judaea  and  begins  to  bap- 
tize, John  also  baptizing  at  ^non.  John  is  imprisoned  after  a  few 
weeks ;  Jesus  then  ceases  His  baptism,  and  returns  to  Galilee.  Thence 
He  goes  up  to  the  unnamed  feast  (John  v.  1). 

3d,  of  this  book.  Soon  after  the  Passover  —  time  undefined  — 
Jesus  and  John  begin  to  baptize  in  Judaea.  Jesus  ceases  to  baptize 
in  the  late  autumn  and  goes  to  Galilee,  John  probably  still  continu- 
ing his  work.  Jesus  remains  in  retirement  three  or  four  months, 
then  goes  up  to  the  unnamed  feast;  and  about  this  time  John  was 
imprisoned.  After  this  feast  Jesus  goes  to  Galilee,  and  begins  His 
ministry  there. 

How  long  after  Jesus  ceased  baptizing  and  left  Judaea  John  con- 
tinued to  baptize,  we  do  not  know,  but  the  strong  probability  is  that 
he  continued  to  baptize  till  his  imprisonment.  Nor  do  we  know 
whether  he  continued  his  work  at  ^non  or  went  to  some  other 
place.  That  at  the  time  of  his  arrest  he  was  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  Herod  Antipas,  is  scarcely  to  be  doubted.  But  where  he  met  with 
Herod,  whether  in  Galilee  or  Peraea,  and  under  what  circumstances, 
we  have  no  information.  The  grounds  of  his  imprisonment  will  be 
later  considered. 

We  conclude  that  John  was  not  imprisoned  when  Jesus  ceased  to 
baptize  and  left  Judaea.  His  imprisonment  was  some  months  later, 
and  the  Lord's  Galilean  ministry  began  soon  after  it. 

The  only  datum  we  have  by  which  to  determine  the  time  of 
the  year  when  Jesus  went  into  Galilee,  is  found  in  His  words  to 
His  disciples  when  seated  by  the  well  in  Sychar:  "Say  not  ye. 
There  are  yet  four  months,  and  then  cometh  harvest  ?  behold,  I 
say  unto  you,"  etc.  (John  iv.  35).  Some,  however,  deny  that 
this  reference  to  the  harvest  as  yet  four  months  distant  is  of 
any  chronological  value,  because  the  expression  is  a  proverbial 
one,  based  upon  the  fact  that  there  is  an  average  interval  of 


Part  III.]  JESUS   CEASES   TO   BAPTIZE.  183 

four  months  between  the  sowing  and  harvesting.'  But  the  form 
of  the  expression  seems  to  forbid  that  we  regaid  it  as  a  proverb, 
"Say  not  ye,  There  are  yet  four  months,"  etc.;  here  "yet,"  eti, 
obviously  refers  to  the  time  when  the  words  were  spoken. 
From  this  time,  not  from  the  time  of  sowing,  are  four  montlis, 
and  then  the  harvest.^  We  are,  then,  to  determine  the  time  of 
the  harvest,  and  counting  backward  four  months  reach  the 
time  when  the  words  were  spoken.  Upon  the  16th  Nisan,  a  sheaf 
of  the  first  fruits  of  the  barley  harvest  was  to  be  waved  before 
the  Lord  in  the  Temple.  Till  this  was  done  no  one  might  law- 
fully gather  his  grain.  ^  From  this  legal  commencement  of  the 
harvest  aboat  the  first  of  April,  we  obtain  the  month  of  Decem- 
ber as  that  in  which  the  words  were  spoken. ■*  Tholuck  {in  loco) 
regards  the  expression  as  proverbial,  yet  reaches  nearly  the 
same  result.  "As  our  Lord  points  them  to  the  fields,  it  is 
highly  probable  that  it  was  just  then  seed-time,  and  we  are  thus 
furnished  with  the  date,  to  wit,  that  Jesus  had  remained  in 
Judaea  from  April,  when  the  Passover  occurred,  till  November."  * 
A  very  different  result  is  reached  by  some  who  take  the 
Lord's  words,  "Lift  up  your  eyes,  and  look  on  the  fields;  for 
they  are  white  already  to  harvest,"  as  not  figurative  but  literal, 
and  expressive  of  an  actual  fact.  The  harvest,  they  infer,  was 
not  four  months  distant  but  just  at  hand.  Upon  this  ground 
Greswell  (ii.  229)  decides  "that  the  time  of  the  journey  coincided 
with  the  acme  of  wheat  harvest,  or  was  but  a  little  before  it," 
and  puts  it  two  or  three  weeks  before  Pentecost,  or  about  the 
middle  of  May."  » 

The  direct  route  from  Judfea  to  Nazareth  led  through  Samaria  by 
Sichem,  and  was  generally  taken  by  the  companies  attending  the 
feast  from  Galilee,   although  the  enmity  of   the    Samaritans   to  the 


1  Norton,  Kraflft,  Greswell,  Alford,  Westeott. 

8  Lightfoot,  Baronius,  Litchtenstein,  Wieseler,  Stier,  Meyer,  Robinson,  Godet,  Luth- 
ardt. 

^Levit.  xxiil.  10,  etc.;  Deut.  xvi.  9,  etc.;  Jcsephus,  Antiq.  iii.  10.  5. 

*  Lightfoot,  Lichtenstein,  Meyer,  Ellicott. 

*  A.  Clarke  and  Stier,  putting  the  harvest  in  May,  make  the  departure  to  have  been  in 
January;  Stanley,  in  January  or  February. 

*  So  Townsend,  iti  loco,  "  The  Messiah,"  101 ;  Caspar!,  Eders.,  Alford  regards  all  chrono- 
logical inferences  built  on  i;his  passage,  as  unwarranted.  A  writer  in  the  Dublin  Review, 
April,  1890,  finds  the  following  meaning:  Say  ye  not  that  the  crop  is  already  four  months 
old,  and  the  harvest  is  coming  ? 


184  THE   LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part   IIL 

Jews  seems  especially  to  have  manifested  itself  on  such  occasions. 
Josephus  says^  that  it  was  necessary  for  those  that  would  travel 
quickly  to  take  that  route,  as  by  it  Jerusalem  could  be  reached  in 
three  days  from  Galilee.  Sychar,  the  city  of  Samaria  through  which 
He  passed,  is  regarded  by  many  as  a  corruption  of  Sychem  (Acts 
vii.  16),  which  stood  upon  the  site  of  the  present  Neapolis  or 
Nablous,  and  is  often  mentioned  in  biblical  history.^  For  a  time 
after  the  return  from  the  captivity,  Samaria  (1  Kings  xvi.  24)  was 
the  chief  city,  but  Sichem  soon  gained  the  ascendency,  and  though 
Herod  had  recently  rebuilt  Samaria  with  much  magnificence,  yet  Sichem 
retained  its  place  as  the  leading  city  of  the  province.  The  change 
from  Sichem  to  Sychar  is  supposed  to  mark  the  contempt  of  the  Jews 
toward  the  Sichemites,  the  Sychar  meaning  the  "toper  city,"  or 
the  "heathen  city"  ;  but  it  may  have  been  made  by  those  speak- 
ing Greek  for  easier  pronunciation.  Alexander  calls  it  "a  later 
Aramaic  form."  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  this  change  was  made 
by  John  in  his  narrative  to  express  his  owm  dislike,  or  that,  as  said 
by  Stier,  "it  was  an  intentional  intimation  of  the  relation  and  posi- 
tion of  things  between  Judaea  and  Samaria."  Unless  the  name 
Sychar  was  in  common  use,  we  can  scarce  suppose  him  to  have  em- 
ployed it;  for  in  a  simple  historical  statement  the  intentional  use  of 
any  mock  name  or  opprobrious  epithet  would  be  out  of  keeping. 

Some  make  Sychar  a  village  near  Sichem,  but  distinct  from  it.* 
This  was  the  early  opinion.  They  were  distinguished  by  Eusebius, 
and  in  the  Jerusalem  Itinerarium.*  Raumer  supposes  that  the  city 
of  Sichem  was  a  long  straggling  one,  and  that  the  east  end  of  it  near 
Jacob's  well  was  called  Sychar.  There  is  now  a  village  near  the  well 
called  El  Askar,  which  some  have  sujjposed  to  be  Sychar.  Thomson 
(ii.  206)  says:  "This  is  so  like  John's  Sychar  that  I  feel  inclined  to 
adopt  it."  •  The  most  recent  in^*stigation  accepts  this  conclusion. 
(For  a  discussion  of  the  matter,  see  Eders.,  ii.  App.,  767;  Tristram, 
B.  P.,  192). 

Jacob's  well,  where  Jesus  was  resting  Himself  when  He  met  the 
Samaritan  woman,  "is  on  the  end  of  a  low  spur  or  swell  running  out 
from  the  northeastern  base  of  Gerizim;  and  is  still  15  or  20  feet  above 
the  level  of  the  plain  below."''  It  was  formerly  believed  to  have 
been  dug  out  of  the  solid  rock,  but  we  now  know  that  the  upper 


1  Jogephus,  Antiq.  xx.  G.  1.  2  Life,  50. 

'So  Meyer,  Wieseler,  Raumer,  Robinson,  Ritter,  Alford. 
*Hug,  Luthardt,  Lichtenstein.  5  gee  Raumer,  146,  note. 

6  So  Godet,  Luthardt,  M.  and  M.,  Westcott.    See  contra  Robinson,  iii.    1.33;  see  alsc 
Wieseler,  256,  note. 
'  Robinson,  iii.  132. 


Part  II.]  THE  WELL  OP  JACOB.  185 

part  is  through  a  mixture  of  alluvium  and  limestone  fragments,  and 
the  interior  seem  to  have  been  lined  throughout  with  rough  masonry. 
The  diameter  is  seven  or  eight  feet.  Anderson,  in  "  Twenty-one 
Years'  TForZ;,"  (192)  says:  the  well  was  doubtless  sunk  deep  at  first, 
but  its  original  depth  cannot  now  be  ascertained,  it  having  gradually 
filled  up,  but  was  probably  near  one  hundred  feet.  Its  present 
depth  is  about  seventy-five.  The  quantity  of  water  in  it  greatly 
varies;  Maundrell  found  it  five  yards  in  depth.  Sometimes  it  is 
nearly  or  wholly  dry.  Dr.  Wilson  in  1842  found  so  little  water  in 
it,  that  a  servant,  whom  he  let  down  to  the  bottom,  was  able  by 
means  of  dry  sticks  thrown  to  him,  to  kindle  a  blaze  which  dis- 
tinctly showed  the  whole  of  the  well  from  the  top  to  the  bottom. 
Osborne  says':  "There  was  no  water  at  the  time  of  our  visit,  near 
the  close  of  December."  "  Formerly  there  was  a  square  hole  open- 
ing into  a  carefully  built  vaulted  chamber,  about  10  feet  square, 
in  the  floor  of  which  was  the  true  mouth  of  the  well.  Now  a 
portion  of  the  vault  has  fallen  in,  and  completely  covered  up  the 
mouth,  so  that  nothing  can  be  seen  but  a  shallow  pit  half  filled  with 
stones  and  rubbish."^  A  church  was  built  near  this  spot,  of  which 
few  traces  remain.  It  is  said  that  the  Russians  have  bought  the  site, 
and  are  about  to  rebuild  the  church. 

It  has  been  much  questioned  why  a  well  should  have  been  dug 
here,  since  there  are  several  springs  within  a  little  distance  giving  an 
abundance  of  water.  Some  suppose  that  earthquakes  may  have 
caused  the  springs  to  flow  since  the  well  was  dug.  More  probable  is 
the  supposition  that  Jacob  found  the  springs  in  the  possession  of 
others,  who  were  unwilling  to  share  the  water  with  him,  and  there- 
fore, as  a  matter  of  necessity,  he  must  obtain  it  from  a  well  (Tris- 
tram, B.  P.,  187).  Why  the  woman  should  have  come  to  this  well  to 
draw  water,  which  was  so  much  more  easily  attainable  near  by,  can- 
not now  be  explained.  It  may  be,  as  suggested  by  Caspari,  that  the 
village  was  much  larger  in  the  Lord's  day,  and  stretched  near  to  the 
well ;  or,  if  the  city  itself  was  at  some  distance,  and  the  language  seems 
to  imply  this  (verses  8,  28-30),  she  may  have  lived  in  the  suburbs, 
for  it  is  not  said  that  she  resided  in  the  city ;  but  if  she  did  so,  she  may 
have  had  special  reasons  for  wishing  the  water  of  this  well, 
because  of  its  coolness  or  other  qualities;  or  as  especially  valuable  be- 
cause of  its  association  with  Jacob.  Porter  (ii.  342)  speaks  of  those 
at  Damascus,  who  send  to  a  particular  fountain  a  mile  or  more  distant 
from  their  homes,  although  water  is  everywhere  very  abundant. 

It   was  about  the  sixth   hour  that   Jesus  sat  on  the  well. 


1  Palestine,  335.  2  Porter,  ii.  340. 


186  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  III. 

This,  according  to  Jewish  reckoning,  would  be  12  m.  or  noon;  if 
reckoned  according  to  Roman  computation,  5  to  6  p.  m.,  or  as 
some  say,'  5  to  6  a.  m.  Ebrard  ('296),  who  contends  that  John 
always  uses  the  Roman  computation,  prefers  the  evening  here  on 
the  grounds  that  the  noonday  was  an  unfit  time  to  travel,  and 
that  wells  were  usually  visited  for  water  at  evening.  But  if  we 
remember  that  this  was  in  December,  travelling  at  midday  will 
not  appear  strange.  Noon  was  not,  indeed,  the  time  for  general 
resort  to  the  well,  but  such  resort  must  be  determined  in  partic- 
ular cases  by  individual  need;  and  that  the  woman  was  alone, 
and  held  so  long  a  private  conversation  uninterrupted,  shows 
that  it  was  an  hour  when  the  well  was  not  generally  visited. 
There  seems,  then,  no  reason  to  depart  from  the  common  opinion 
that  it  was  about  noon.^  At  this  hour  the  Jews  were  accus- 
tomed to  take  their  principal  meal.^ 

The  reception  which  the  Lord  met  with  among  the  Samari- 
tans was  in  striking  contrast  with  His  reception  in  Judaea;  yet 
among  them|Ee  seems  to  have  wrought  no  miracles,  and 
to  have  been  Keived  because  the  truth  He  taught  was  the  con- 
vincing proof  G%  His  Messianic  character. 

Arriving  ia  Galilee,  Jesus  was  honorably  received  by  the 
Galilaeans,  for  they  had  been  at  the  Passover,  and  had  "seen  all 
the  things  that  He  did  at  Jerusalem  at  the  feast "  (John  iv.  43- 
45).  Of  "the  many  that  then  believed  on  Him,"  a  considerable 
part  may  have  been  Galilsean  pilgrims.  But  in  face  of  this  hon- 
orable reception,  how  are  His  words  (verse  44)  to  be  understood, 
"that  a  prophet  hath  no  honor  in  his  own  country,"  which 
are  apparently  cited  as  explaining  why  He  went  into  Galilee  ? 
There  are  several  interpretations,  the  chief  of  which  are  :  1. 
Galilee  is  to  be  taken  in  opposition  to  Nazareth.  In  this  city. 
His  own  country,  Jesus  had  no  honor,  but  elsewhere  in  Galilee 
He  was  received  as  a  prophet.^  2.  Galilee  is  to  be  taken  in 
opposition  to  Judaea.  Judaea  was  His  birthplace,  and  so  His 
own  country,  and  it  was  also  the  land  of  the  prophets;  but  there 


1  Greswell,  ii.  21C;  McKnight. 

2  For  this,  Luthardt,  Meyer,    Godet.    For  6  p.  m.,  M.  and   M.,  Westcott.     The 
point  how  John  computed  time,  has  been  already  discussed  (John  i.  39). 

3  Winer,  ii.  47. 

*  Lightfoot,  Kraflt,  Lange  with  a  slight  inodiftcatlon. 


Part  111.]  SECOND  VISIT  AT  CANA.  187 

He  had  found  no  reception,  and  had  been  compelled  to  discon- 
tinue His  ministry.  In  Galilee,  on  the  contrary,  all  were  ready 
to  honor  Him.'  3.  Galilee  is  His  own  country,  where,  according 
to  the  proverb,  He  would  have  had  no  honor  unless  He  had 
first  gone  into  Judaea  and  distinguished  Himself  there.  It  was 
His  miracles  and  works  abroad  that  gave  Him  fame  and  favor 
at  home.^ 

The  last  interpretation  appears  best  to  suit  the  scope  of  the 
narrative.  The  connection  between  verses  43  and  44  is  this.  In 
verse  43,  the  fact  is  stated  that  He  went  into  Galilee;  and  in 
verse  44,  the  reason  is  assigned  why  He  went.  As,  according  to 
the  proverb,  a  prophet  is  without  honor  in  his  own  coimtry,  by 
retiring  into  Galilee  He  could  avoid  all  publicity  and  find 
retirement.  "  He  went  to  Galilee  because  there  in  His  own 
country  He  could  expect  no  honor,  .  .  and  could  hope  not 
to  be  observed  there,  but  to  remain  in  rest  and  quiet."  (Luthardt.) 
But  in  verse  45,  the  fact  is  stated  that  the  Galilaeans,  notwith- 
standing the  proverb,  did  receive  Him,  and  the  reason  is  also 
added,  because  they  had  been  at  Jerusalem  and  had  seen  what 
He  did  there.  And  in  verses  46-53,  a  particular  instance  is 
given,  showing  how  high  was  His  reputation  in  Galilee,  and  what 
publicity  attended  His  movements.  His  arrival  at  Cana  was 
soon  known  at  Capernaum,  and  a  nobleman  from  the  latter  city, 
supposed  by  many  to  be  Chuza,  steward  of  Herod  (Luke  viii.  3), 
by  others,  Manaen  (Acts  xiii.  1),  coming  to  Him,  desired  that 
He  would  return  with  him,  and  heal  his  son.  Without  leaving 
Cana,  Jesus  healed  him.     This  was  His  second  Galilsean  miracle. 

From  the  time  of  this  miracle  at  Cana,  we  lose  sight  of  the 
Lord  till  He  reappears  going  up  to  a  feast  at  Jerusalem  (John  v. 
1).  If,  as  we  have  supposed.  He  left  Judsea  in  December,  this 
miracle  must  have  been  wrought  soon  after  His  arrival  in  Gali 
lee.  "  This  second  time,  as  at  the  first.  He  signalized  His  return 
to  Galilee  by  a  new  miracle  at  Cana."  (Godet.)  As  the  first 
feast  which  He  could  attend  was  that  of  Purim,  in  March,  an 
interval  of  some  two  or  three  months  must  have  elapsed.  If 
this  feast  was  the  Passover,  or  any  of  the  later  feasts,  this  inter- 
val was  correspondingly  prolonged.     How  was  this  time  spent? 


1  Ebrard,  Norton,  Westcott,  M.  and  M.  -  Meyer,  Alford,  Godet,  Luthardt. 


188  THE  LIFE   OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  III. 

Those  who  make  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist  to  have  taken 
place  before  He  left  Judaea,  suppose  that  He  now  entered  upon 
His  Galilaean  work.  But,  upon  grounds  already  stated,  we  con- 
clude that  John  was  not  yet  imprisoned,  and  therefore,  His  Gal- 
ilaean work  could  not  now  begin,  as  the  two  are  closely  connected 
by  the  Synoptists  (Matt.  iv.  12,  Mark  i.  14,  Luke  iii.  20  and  iv. 
14).  Several  additional  considerations  induce  us  to  think  that 
this  period  was  not  spent  in  any  public  labors.  1.  When,  after 
the  imprisonment  of  John  Jesus  went  into  Galilee  to  teach  and 
to  preach  His  disciples  were  not  with  Him,  and  not  till  He  had 
begun  His  labors  at  Capernaum  did  they  rejoin  Him  (Matt.  iv. 
18,  Mark  i.  16,  Luke  v.  2-11).  There  was,  then,  an  interval 
after  He  had  ended  His  baptismal  labors  in  Judaea,  in  which 
labors  they  were  His  helpers,  and  before  the  beginning  of  His 
ministry  in  Galilee,  during  which  His  disciples  were  separated 
from  Him,  and  seem  to  have  returned  to  their  accustomed 
avocations.  But  if  His  Galilaean  work  began  as  soon  as  His 
Judaean  work  ended,  there  was  no  time  for  them  to  have  thus 
returned  to  their  homes,  and,  therefore,  no  opportunity  to  recall 
them  to  His  service. 

2.  The  Lord  gave  up  baptizing,  as  we  have  seen,  because 
of  the  hostility  of  the  Pharisees,  and  their  rejection  of  the  rite; 
not  because  the  Baptist  was  then  imprisoned.  So  long  as  John 
was  able,  both  in  word  and  act,  to  bear  witness  to  Him  as  the 
Messiah,  He  could  Himself  seek  retirement,  and  wait  the  issue 
of  John's  ministry.  He  could  not,  till  the  Baptist  was  impris- 
oned and  his  voice  thus  silenced,  leave  Judaea  and  begin  His 
work  in  Galilee.  To  Galilee  He  went,  therefore,  as  a  place  of 
seclusion,  not  of  publicity;  of  rest,  not  of  activity  The  prov- 
erb that  a  prophet  has  no  honor  in  his  own  country,  did  not 
indeed  prove  true  in  His  case.  He  was  honorably  received, 
and  immediately  besought  to  heal  the  sick.  Still  there  is  no 
record  that  He  entered  upon  any  public  labors,  that  He  preached 
or  taught  in  the  synagogues,  or  wrought  any  miracle  beside 
that  recorded  of  the  nobleman's  son.  How  or  where  His  time 
was  spent,  can  only  be  conjectured.  From  the  fact  that  no  men- 
tion is  made  of  Nazareth,  it  has  been  inferred  that  He  pur- 
posely avoided  that  city,  and  took  another  route  to  Cana.     That 


Part  III.]  JESUS    AT    JERUSALEM.  189 

He  is  spoken  of  as  being  at  Cana,  gives  a  show  of  confirmation 
to  the  supposition  already  alluded  to,  that  Mary  and  her  child 
ren  had  now  left  Nazareth,  and  were  dwelling  at  Cana.  But 
we  may  as  readily  suppose  that  He  was  now  visiting  at  the  house 
of  the  friends,  or  relatives,  where  He  changed  the  water  into 
wine. 

Passover,  March  30  — April  5,  781.     A.  D.  28. 

From  Galilee  Jesus  goes  up  to  a  feast,  audat  the  pool  of  John  v.  1. 
Bethesda  heals  an  impotent  inau.    This  act,  done  on  the  Sab-  John  v.  S-9. 
bath  day,  arouses  the  anger  of  the  Jews,  who  conspire  against  John  v.  10-16. 
His  life.    He  defends  His  right  to  heal  on  the  Sabbath  upon  John  v.  17-47. 
grounds  that  still  more  exasperate  them.     At  this  time  He  Matt.  iv.  12. 
hears  of  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist,  and  retires  to  Gall-  Mark  i.  14. 
lee,  to  begin  His  work  there.  Luke  iv.  14. 

"  After  this  there  was  a  feast  of  the  Jews,  and  Jesus  went  up 
to  Jerusalem."  Which  feast  was  this  ?  Opinions  are  divided 
between  Purim  in  March,  Passover  in  April,  Pentecost  in  May, 
and  Tabernacles  in  September;  and  some  minor  feasts  have  also 
found  advocates.  Before  considering  the  arguments  urged  in 
favor  of  each,  let  us  examine  the  statement  of  John:  "After 
this  there  was  a  feast  of  the  Jews." 

There  has  been  much  doubt  as  to  the  true  reading,  whether 
a  feast  or  the  feast  —  eopr?)  or  r]  eoprij  —  but  the  weight  of 
authority  is  against  the  article.  W.  and  H.  omit  it,  Tischen- 
dorf  inserts  it.  In  R.  Y.  it  is  omitted:  '•  There  was  a  feast  of 
the  Jews  " ;  but  in  the  margin  it  says  "  Many  ancient  authori- 
ties read,  the  feast."  Accepting  the  reading,  "a  feast,"  does  not 
the  absence  of  the  article  determine  what  kind  of  feast  it  was  ? 
It  is  generally  held  that  if  the  article  was  used,  this  would  show 
only  that  one  of  the  three  great  feasts  could  be  meant;  not  being 
used,  one  of  the  minor  feasts  must  be  meant.  But  are  these  cer- 
tain inferences?  Why  might  not  the  writer  speak  of  one  of  the 
greater  feasts  simply  as  a  feast?  He  would  unquestionably  do 
this  if  he  saw  any  ground  for  it.  Tlie  mere  absence  of  the  arti- 
cle does  not  warrant  us  in  saying  that  the  Evangelist  must  have 
meant  a  minor  feast,  nor  does  its  presence  define  which  of  the 
greater  feasts  is  intended.  Tlioluck  says:  'The  Passover  may 
be  meant,  or  other  feasts  ";  and  Abp.  Thomson  observes,  that  •'  al' 


190  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  III. 

its  omission  could  prove,  would  be  that  the  Evangelist  did  not 
think  it  needful  to  describe  the  feast  more  particularly."  It  is 
said  by  Robinson  and  others,  that  if  the  article  was  used,  the 
feast  must  have  been  the  Passover  as  the  most  ancient  of  all 
feasts.  But  Josephus  speaks  of  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  as  "  a 
feast  most  holy  and  eminent"  (Antiq.,  viii.  4.  1).  If  the  article 
was  used,  this  feast  would  have  the  preference.  (So  Browne^ 
Westcott.) 

But,  if  the  article  be  wanting,  it  is  said  that  the  feast  is  still 
defined  by  the  addition  to  it  of  the  explanatory  words  '-of -the 
Jews,"  Tcjv  ^ovdaio)v.^  It  is  given  as  a  rule  of  Hebrew,  and  so 
transferred  to  Scriptui'e  Greek,  that  the  "noun  before  a  genitive 
is  made  definite  by  prefixing  the  article,  not  to  the  noun  itself, 
but  to  the  genitive."  ^  Thus,  the  phrase  before  us  should  be 
rendered  "the  feast  of  the  Jews,"  or  "  the  Jews'  festival,"  which 
must  be  understood  of  the  Passover.  But  the  rule  is  given  with 
an  important  qualification  by  Winer: '  "  The  article  is  frequently 
omitted,  when  a  noun,  denoting  an  object  of  which  the  Individ 
ual  referred  to  possesses  but  one,  is  clearly  defined  by  means  of 
a  genitive  following."  ^  As  there  was  but  one  feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, the  phrase  eopTrj  rojv  oKrjvcJv  would  be  properly  rendered 
"  the  feast  of  Tabernacles ; "  but  as  there  were  several  feasts 
kept  by  the  Jews,  "feast  of  the  Jews,"  may  mean  any  feast. 

From  the  form  of  the  expression,  then,  nothing  certain  can 
be  determined.  We  learn  simply  that  Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem at  one  of  the  Jewish  feasts.  We  not  even  learn  whether  it 
was  one  of  the  greater  or  lesser  feasts.  It  seems  to  be  men- 
tioned only  as  giving  the  occasion  why  He  went  up  to  Jerusalem. 
He  would  not  have  gone  except  there  had  been  a  feast,  but  its 
name  was  unimportant  to  the  Evangelist's  purpose.^  Let  us 
then  enquire  what  light  is  thrown  upon  it  from  the  general  scope 
of  this  Gospel. 


1  Hug,  Int.,  449.    See  John  vii.  2,  "  Now  the  feast  of  the  Jews,  the  feast  of  taber- 
nacles, was  at  hand,"  R.  V. 

*  Robinson,  Har.,  190.    See  in  the  Septuagint,  Deut.  xvi.  13;  2  Kings,  xviii.  15; 
also  Matt.  xii.  24;  Luke  ii.  11;  Acts  viii.  5. 

3  Gram.    Thayer's  trans.,  page  135. 

*  See  also  Liicke  in  loco,  who  agrees  that  only  where  the  governing  noun  exist;- 
singly  in  its  kind,  is  it  rendered  definite  by  a  noun  following. 

^  See  Luthardt  in  loco.    It  is  said  by  Robinson,  that  John  "  uses  the  festivals  as 
roeasui  es  of  time,"  but  this  is  an  over-statement  of  the  chronological  element. 


Part  111.]      SECOND   PASSOVER  OF   HIS   MINISTRY.  191 

It  is  apparent  that  John  does  not  design,  any  more  tlian  the 
other  Evangelists,  to  give  us  a  complete  chronological  outline  of 
tlie  Lord's  life.  But  we  see  that  he  mentions  by  name  several 
feasts  which  the  Lord  attended  which  the  Synoptists  do  not 
mention  at  all; '  and  these  so  mentioned  were  by  no  means  all 
the  feasts  that  occurred  during  His  ministry.  That  of  Pente- 
cost is  nowhere  mentioned,  nor  does  John  say  that  those 
mentioned  by  him  were  all  that  Jesus  attended.  During  the  first 
year  of  His  labors,  or  while  baptizing  in  Judaea — supposing  His 
baptism  to  have  extended  to  December  —  there  is  good  ground  to 
believe  that  He  was  present  at  the  three  chief  feasts,  though  the 
Passover  only  is  mentioned.  On  the  other  hand,  one  Passover  is 
mentioned  which  it  is  probable  He  did  not  attend  (John  vi.  4). 
Upon  examination,  we  see  that  the  feasts  which  are  named 
stand  in  some  close  connection  with  the  Lord's  words  or  acts,  so 
that  it  is  necessary  to  specify  them.  Thus  in  ii.  13,  the  mention 
of  the  Passover  explains  the  purification  of  the  temple,  or  driv- 
ing out  of  the  sellers  of  oxen  and  sheep;  in  vi.  4,  it  explains  how 
such  a  great  company  should  have  gathered  to  Him  in  so  lonely 
a  region  across  the  sea;  in  vii.  2,  His  words  take  their  significance 
from  the  special  ceremonies  connected  with  that  feast;  in  x.  22, 
His  presence  in  Solomon's  porch  is  thus  explained.  In  each  of 
these  cases  the  name  of  the  feast  is  mentioned,  not  primarily  as 
a  datum  of  time,  but  as  explanatory  of  something  in  the  narra- 
tive ;  and  as  the  mention  of  the  other  feasts  was  unimportant  to 
his  purpose,  John  passes  them  by  in  silence.  But  the  feast 
before  us  he  mentions,  yet  does  not  give  its  name.  What  shall 
we  infer  from  this  ?  Some,  as  has  been  said,  infer  that  it  must 
have  been  one  of  the  minor  feasts,  for  had  it  been  one  of  the 
chief  feasts  it  would  have  been  named.  But,  as  he  specifies  . 
(x.  22)  one  of  the  minor  feasts,  there  seems  no  suflBcient  reason 
why  he  should  not  specify  this,  had  it  been  such.  All  that  we 
can  say  is,  that  there  was  no  such  connection  between  this  feast 
and  what  Jesus  said  or  did  while  attending  it,  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  specify  it.  The  healing  of  the  impotent  man  and  the 
events  that  followed  might  have  taken  place  at  any  feast. 

The    silence,   then,  of  John  determines   nothing  respecting 


1  See  ii.  13;  vi.  4;  vii.  2;  x.  83, 


192  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  III. 

the  nature  of  this  feast.  We  cannot  infer  with  any  assurance, 
because  he  has  mentioned  three  Passovers  beside,  that  this  was 
a  fourth;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  that  he  would  have  so  specified 
it  had  it  been  a  Passover. 

As  this  feast  is  not  named,  and  the  presence  or  absence  of 
the  article  does  not  determine  which  it  was,  we  must  examine  it 
from  the  chronological  point  of  view,  and  learn  its  relations  to 
the  feasts  before  and  after.  And  the  first  element  to  be  taken 
into  account  is  the  length  of  the  Lord's  baptismal  work  follow- 
ing His  first  Passover  (John  ii.  1.3).  Opinions  are  here  divided, 
as  we  have  already  seen;  some  suppose  Him  to  have  ceased  that 
work,  and  to  have  left  Judtea  in  Ma,y,  a  few  weeks  after  that 
Passover  (John  iv.  3;  so  Gres.,  Caspari,  Eders.,  McCiel.).  If  this 
be  so,  in  the  remainder  of  this  year,  for  we  may  believe  that  the 
feast  of  Pentecost  was  already  past,  would  fall  the  greater  feast  of 
Tabernacles,  preceded  by  the  Day  of  Atonement,  and  the  minor 
feasts  of  Wood -gathering  in  August ;  of  Trumpets  in  September; 
of  Dedication  in  December.  Each  of  these,  except  the  last,  has  its 
advocates;  for  Wood-gathering,  Edersheim;  for  Trumpets, 
Westcott.  Caspari  defends  the  Day  of  Atonement.  But  the  first 
two  have  small  claim  for  consideration.  The  feast  of  Wood- 
offering  (Nehemiah  x.  34  ;  Joseph.,  War,  ii.  17.  6)  whose  object 
was  to  bring  wood  for  the  altar,  was  observed  several  times  in 
the  course  of  the  year,  of  which  the  15  Ab-(August),  was  the  most 
important,  and  it  is  the  feast  at  this  time  which  is  advocated  by 
Edei-sheim  (ii.  App.,  see  Reland,  Antiq.,  308).  As  to  the  monthly 
feasts  of  Trumpets,  Westcott  selects  that  on  the  first  of  Septem- 
ber. It  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  claims  of  these  two  feasts, 
that  both  were  of  subordinate  importance,  and  little  attended  by 
the  Jews.  As  to  the  Day  of  Atonement,  from  the  very  nature 
of  its  services,  it  cannot  be  called  a  feast  (Levit.  xvi.  29  if.). 

But  most  put  the  Lord's  departure  from  Judsea  not  in  April 
or  May,  but  much  later,  in  November  or  December.  The  feasi 
of  Dedication  was  observed  aboiat  the  middle  of  December,  and 
it  is  generally  agreed  that  this  cannot  be  the  feast  intended  by 
the  Evangelist.  The  next  was  that  in  March,  the  feast  of  Purim. 
That  this  feast  is  the  one  in  question  was  first  suggested  by 
Kepler,   and  has  since   found    many  eminent    supporters.     But 


Part  III.]  THE   UNNAMED   FEAST.  193 

before  we  consider  the  arguments  in  its  favor,  let  us  examine  its 
origin  and  history. 

Purim  was  not  a  Mosaic  feast,  or  of  divine  appointment,  but  one 
established  by  the  Jews  while  in  captivity  in  commemoration  of  their 
deliverance  from  the  murderous  plans  of  Haman  (Esther  iii.  7;  ix. 
24).  It  is  derived  from  "pur,"  the  Persian  word  for  lot.  Ilaman 
sought  to  find  an  auspicious  day  for  the  execution  of  his  design  by 
casting  lots.  The  lot  fell  on  the  14th  Adar.  Failing  in  his  purjjose, 
this  day  was  kept  thereafter  by  the  Jews  as  a  festival.  It  seems 
to  have  been  first  observed  by  th'  Jews  out  of  Palestine,  and 
eighty-five  elders  made  exceptions  against  it  as  an  innovation  against 
the  Law.'  It  is  mentioned  in  Maccabees  (2  Mac.  xv.  36)  as  Mordecai's 
day.  It  is  also  mentioned  by  Josephus,'^  who  says  "that  even  now 
all  the  Jews  that  are  in  the  habitable  earth  keep  these  days  festival." 
It  is  often  alluded  to  in  the  Talmud.^  Of  the  two  days  originally 
set,  (Esther  ix.  21,)  the  first  was  chiefly  observed. 

Such  was  the  origin  of  the  feast.  It  was  commemorated  by  the 
reading  of  Esther  in  the  synagogues,  and  by  general  festivity,  with 
plays  and  masquerades.  Maimonides  says  it  was  forbidden  to  fast  or 
weep  on  this  day.  It  was  rather  a  national  and  political  than 
religious  solemnity  ;*  and  as  no  special  services  were  appointed  for  its 
observance  at  the  temple,  there  was  no  necessity  of  going  up  to 
Jerusalem;  nor  does  it  appear  that  this  was  their  custom.  In  this  re- 
spect it  was  unlike  the  feast  of  Dedication,  which,  as  commemorating 
the  purification  of  the  temple,  had  a  religious  character.  Each  Jew 
observed  it  as  a  day  of  patriotic  rejoicing  and  festivity,  wherever  he 
chanced  to  be.*  Lightfoot  (on  Mark  i.  38)  remarks  that  if  the  feast 
did  not  come  on  a  synagogue  day,  those  living  in  a  village  where  was 
no  synagogue,  need  not  go  to  some  other  village  to  read  the  book  of 
Esther,  but  could  wait  till  a  synagogue  day.^ 

From  this  brief  survey  Of  the  history,. and  the  manner  of  observ- 
ance of  this  feast,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  it  is  the  feast  meant  by 
John.  It  was  not  one  of  their  divinely  appointed  feasts,  nor  vv^as 
there  any  legal  obligation  to  keep  it.  It  was  not  a  feast  specifically 
religious,  but  patriotic ;  a  day,  making  due  allowance  for  difference 


1  Lightfoot,  on  John  x.  23.  2  Antiq.,  xi.  6.  13. 

8  Winer,  ii.  289;  Wieseler,  206.  *Ewald,  iv.  261. 

6  Of  the  mode  of  its  observance  in  this  country  at  the  present  time,  a  recent  New  York 
journal  gives  the  following  account  :  "  The  day  is  devoted  to  mirth  and  merry-making. 
In  the  evening  and  morning  the  synagogues  are  lighted  up,  and  the  reader  chants  the 
book  of  Esther.  It  is  a  custom  among  the  Jews  on  this  occasion  to  visit  each  other's 
houses  in  masked  attire  and  exchange  joyful  greetings." 

6  See  generally,  Hengstenberg,  Christol.,  iii.  240;  Hug,  Int.,  449;  Wieseler,  222;  Brown, 
Jew.  Antiq.,  i.  574. 

9 


194  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  III. 

in  customs  and  institutions,  not  unlike  the  day  that  commemorates 
our  own  national  independence.  There  were  no  sj^ecial  rites  that 
made  it  necessary  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  even  those  residing  in 
villages  where  was  no  synagogue  were  not  obliged  to  go  to  a  village 
where  one  was  to  be  found.  Why,  then,  should  Jesus  go  up  from 
Galilee  to  be  present  at  this  feast  ?  It  was  not  a  time  in  which  men's 
minds  were  prepared  to  hear  spiritual  instruction,  nor  could  He 
sympathize  with  the  rude  and  boisterous,  not  to  say  disorderly  and 
drunken  manner  in  which  the  day  was  kept.  Stier  (v.  75),  who  de- 
fends Purim,  admits  "the  revengeful  and  extravagant  spirit  which 
animated  it,"  and  "the debauched  manner  in  which  these  days  of  ex- 
cess were  spent."  Yet  he  thinks  motives  of  compassion  disposed  the 
Lord  to  visit  once  "this  melancholy  caricature  of  a  holy  festivity;" 
but  it  is  well  said  by  Edersheim:  "  I  can  scarcely  conceive  our  Lord 
going  to  a  feast  observed  with  such  boisterous  merriment."  We  can 
see  no  sufficient  motive  for  such  a  journey.  The  tenor  of  the  narrative 
naturally  leads  us  to  think  of  one  of  the  greater  and  generally  attended 
festivals.  If  it  be  said  of  a  Jew  that  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  a  feast, 
the  obvious  understanding  would  be  that  it  was  a  feast  that  he  was 
legally  bound  to  attend,  and  which  could  be  rightly  kept  only  at 
Jerusalem. 

The  chief  argument  in  favor  of  Purim,  and,  indeed,  the  only  one 
of  importance,  is  that  this  feast  is  brought  by  John  into  such  close 
connection  with  the  Passover  (vi.  4),  and  that  if  it  be  not  Purim,  then 
a  year  and  a  half,  at  least,  must  have  elapsed  ere  Jesus  visited  Jerusa- 
lem again,  the  next  recorded  visit  being  that  to  the  feast  of  Taberna- 
cles (John  vii.  2).  But  this  is  not  the  only  instance  in  which  John 
narrates  events  widely  separated  in  time,  without  noting  the  interval. 
Thus,  ch.  vi.  relates  what  took  place  before  a  Passover,  and  ch.  vii. 
what  took  place  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  six  months  later.  In  like 
manner,  in  x.  22,  is  a  sudden  transition  from  this  feast  of  Tabernacles 
to  that  of  Dedication.  Why  the  intervening  events  are  not  mentioned, 
finds  explanation  in  the  peculiar  character  of  this  gospel.  That  Jesus 
should  have  absented  Himself  for  so  long  a  time  from  the  feasts,  is 
explained  by  the  hostility  of  the  Jews,  and  their  purpose  to  slay  Him 
(John  V.  16-18;  vii.  1). 

On  the  other  hand,  if  this  feast  be  Purim,  and  the  Passover  in  vi. 
4,  be  the  first  Passover  after  it,  or  the  second  of  the  Lord's  ministry, 
then  the  interval  between  them,  about  three  weeks,  is  not  sufficient  for 
all  the  events  that  must  have  taken  place.  And  still  less  is  the  interval 
between  December,  when  most  of  the  advocates  of  Purim  suppose  the 
Lord's  Galilsean  work  to  have  begun,  and  the  following  Passover  (vi. 


Part  111.]  THE  UNNAMED  FEAST.  195 

4)  sufficient  to  include  all  that  the  Synoptists  relate.  The  feeding  of 
the  five  thousand,  as  is  generally  agreed,  and  as  will  be  hereafter 
shown,  marks  the  culmination  of  His  work  in  Galilee;  yet  this  took 
place  according  to  this  view  in  three  or  four  mouths  after  His  work 
began,  for  it  was  a  little  before  the  Passover  (vi.  4).  And  into  this 
short  space  are  crowded  two-thirds,  at  least,  of  all  that  He  did  in 
Galilee,  so  far  as  recorded.  This  would  be  very  improbable,  even  if, 
as  is  supposed,  His  labors  there  extended  only  through  a  year.  In 
the  highest  degree  improbable  is  the  view  of  Wieseler,  followed  by 
EUicott,  that  for  all  this  the  little  interval  between  Purim  and  Pass- 
over was  sufficient.' 

The  order  of  events  thus  presented  to  us  must  be  more  fully  ex- 
amined. If  this  feast  was  Purim,  and  was  followed  a  few  days  after 
by  the  Passover  (vi.  4),  the  Evangelist  mentions  only  three  Passovers, 
ii.  13,  vi.  4,  xi.  55,  and  consequently,  the  Lord's  ministry  was  only  of 
two  years  and  some  months  duration ;  and  this  conclusion  is  accepted 
by  most  who  accept  Purim.  We  have  then  this  order:  1st,  Passover, 
cleansing  of  Temj^le.  2d,  Baptismal  work  in  Juda?a  till  December. 
3d,  Departure  to  Galilee  and  sojourn  there  till  Purim  in  March, 
preaching  and  teaching.  4th,  Returns  after  Purim  to  Galilee,  and 
continues  His  work  there  till  Autumn.  5th,  He  goes  ujd  to  the 
Tabernacles  in  October  (John  vii.  1.  ff.).  6th,  He  is  in  Jerusalem  at 
the  feast  of  Dedication  in  December  (x.  22).  7th,  He  goes  up  to  the 
last  Passover  in  April.  Thus  we  have  a  ministry  of  little  more  than 
two  years. 

The  general  objection  to  this  shorter  ministry  is,  that  it  crowds 
too  many  events  into  the  Galiltean  period.  It  is  said  to  begin  in 
December  and  to  end  in  Ajml  of  the  second  year  following,  leaving 
only  the  interval  between  December  and  the  following  October  when 
He  left  Galilee  —  less  than  a  year  —  for  His  work  of  gathering  dis- 
ciples there.  Whoever  reflects  on  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  mission, 
ho3V  difficult  it  was  for  the  Jews  to  understand  the  significance  of  His 
words  and  His  works,  and  what  misconceptions  respecting  Him  pre- 
vailed, must  see  that  time  was  a  most  essential  element.  He  must 
give  the  people,  even  those  best  prepared  to  hear  Him,  some  time  for 
reflection.  Their  conceptions  of  the  nature  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
could  not  be  changed  in  a  moment;  their  discernment  of  the  failure 
of  the  covenant  people  and  of  their  unfitness  for  the  Messiah,  must  be 
of  gradual  growth.  It  is  true  tliat  in  some  very  receptive  minds 
faith  in  His  person  might  be  quickly  formed,  but  a  right  knowledge 


1  See  Lichtenstein,  174;  Riggenbach,  406. 


196  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  111. 

of  His  Messianic  work  was,  of  necessitj'^,  one  that  required  much 
teaching. ' 

Upon  these  grounds  we  think  the  feast  of  Purim  is  to  be  rejected. 
It  was  a  feast  which  it  is  not  at  all  probable  Jesus  would  go  up  to 
Jerusalem  to  attend,  and  whose  introduction  here  brings  chronological 
confusion  into  the  gospel  history. 

The  next  feast  in  order  of  time  is  that  of  the  Passover  in  April. 
In  favor  of  this  feast  it  may  be  said,  that  it  was  one  which  Jesus 
would  naturally  attend  as  having  for  Him  a  special  significance.  It 
was  also  the  feast  that  had  the  most  distinctly  religious  character, 
and  it  was  very  generally  attended  by  the  people,  especially  the  most 
serious  and  devout.  According  to  Hengsteuberg,  "it  was  the  only 
one  at  which  it  was  a  universal  custom  to  make  a  pilgrimage  to  Jeru- 
salem."' "We  may  thus  infer  that  He  would  certainly  go,  unless  i)re- 
vented  by  the  open  hostility  of  the  Jews.  But  no  such  hostility  now 
appears.  It  was  aroused  into  activity  by  the  healing  of  the  impotent 
man  (John  v.  16-18)  but  till  this  event.  He  was  unmolested. 

But  the  objection  is  taken  that  if  this  be  a  Passover,  and  anotlier 
is  mentioned  (vi.  4)  which  apjiarently  He  did  not  attend,  then  He 
was  not  present  at  any  feast  till  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  (vii.  2),  a 
period  of  a  year  and  a  half.^  This  objection  has  been  already  alluded 
to.  Whether  the  Lord  did  actually  go  up  to  any  feast  between  that  of 
V.  1  and  that  of  vii.  2,  cannot  be  determined.*  We  know,  at  least, 
that  He  would  not,  after  the  rulers  at  Jerusalem  had  sought  to  slay 
Him,  needlessly  expose  His  life  to  peril.  To  the  laws  of  God  respect- 
ing the  feasts  He  would  render  all  obedience,  but  with  the  liberty  of 
a  son,  not  with  the  servile  scrupulosity  of  a  Pharisee.  As  He  was 
Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  so  He  was  Lord  of  the  feasts,  and  He  attended 
them  or  did  not  attend  them,  as  seemed  best  to  Him.  From  John 
(vii.  21,  23),  where  He  refers  to  a  work  which  He  had  previously 
done  at  Jerusalem,  and  which  we  must  identify  with  the  healing  of 
the  impotent  man  (John  v.  5),  it  appears  obvious  that  He  had  not, 
during  the  interval,  been  publicly  teaching  there,  and  therefore  had 
not  attended  any  feast.     Still  the  point  is  not  certain,  as  He  might 


1  If,  indeed,  we  suppose,  with  Edersheiin  and  Wcstcott,  this  unnamed  feast  to  have 
been  in  the  August  or  September  following  the  first  Passover  in  April,  and  to  have  been 
followed  by  that  in  John  vi.  4,  as  the  second,  we  gain  more  time,  and  so  better  meet 
the  statements  of  the  Evangelists;  but,  even  here,  events  are  too  much  crowded,  as  we 
shall  see  when  we  exaniine  them  in  detail. 

*  See  Luke  ii.41,  where  this  feast  is  specially  mentioned. 

3  Uug,  Int.,  448  ;  Pressense. 

■•  Jarv-is,  Int.,  570-57G,  makes  Him  to  have  attended  them  all,  even  that  of  Dedlca- 
cation.    This  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable. 


Fart  III.]  THE   UNNAMED   FEAST.  19? 

have  been  present  as  a  private  worshijjper,  and  without  attracting 
public  attention;  yet  this  is  improbable.' 

Another  objection  to  identifying  this  feast  with  the  Passover,  is 
that  John  relates  nothing  as  having  occurred  between  the  feasts  v.  1 
and  vi.  4,  an  interval  of  a  year.  This  objection  has  already  been 
sufficiently  noticed. 

Pentecost  is  the  feast  next  in  order,  and  occurred  this  year  on  the 
19th  of  May.  This  feast  is  not  mentioned  by  any  of  the  Evangelists, 
nor  do  we  know  that  the  Lord  was  ever  present  at  it.  Though  it 
has  had  some  able  advocates,  as  Calvin,  Bengel,  and  lately,  Town- 
send,  and  was  adopted  by  many  of  the  ancients,  it  has  no  special 
arguments  in  its  favor.  It  was  not  so  generally  attended  as  Passover 
or  Tabernacles,  and  no  reason  appears  why  Jesus  should  have 
omitted  Passover  and  gone  up  to  Pentecost. 

The  feast  of  Tabernacles  followed  upon  the  33d  of  September. 
The  chief  argument  in  its  favor  is,  that  it  brings  the  feast  of  v.  1  into 
closer  connection  with  that  of  vii.  2,  only  a  year  intervening,  and  thus 
best  explains  his  words  vii.  21-23.''  But  some  months  more  or  less 
are  not  under  the  circumstances  important,  for  the  miracle  with  its 
results  must  have  been  fresh  in  their  minds  even  after  a  much  longer 
interval.  If  He  had  not  in  the  interval  between  these  feasts  been  at 
Jerusalem,  as  is  most  probable,  His  reappearance  would  naturally 
carry  their  minds  back  to  the  time  when  they  last  saw  Him,  and  recall 
both  His  work  and  their  own  machinations  against  Him.  Lichten- 
stein  (175)  defends  this  feast,  but  it  is  in  connection  with  the  view 
which  w^e  cannot  adopt,  that  our  Lord  spent  the  summer  of  780  in 
retirement. 

The  great  objection  to  identifying  the  feast  before  us  with  that  of 
Tabernacles,  is,  that  it  puts  between  the  end  of  Chapter  iv.  and  the 
beginning  of  Chaj^ter  v.  a  period  of  eight  or  nine  months,  which  the 
Evangelists  are  said  to  pass  over  in  silence.' 

Comparing  these  various  feasts  together,  that  of  the  Passover 
seems  to  have  most  in  its  favor,  and  that  of  Purim  least.  Some  inci- 
dental points  bearing  upon  this  question  will  be  discussed  as  we  pro- 
ceed. We  give  the  following  order  as  the  result  of  our  inquiries : 
Jesus  ceases  baptizing  and  leaves  Judaja  in  December,  780.  His  dis- 
ciples depart  to  their  homes,  and  He  lives  in  retirement  till  March, 
781,  when  He  goes  up  to  this  feast,  the  Passover.     At  this  time,  on 


1  See  Greswell,  ii.  ^47,  who  maintains  that  the  five  instances  recorded  by  John 
"  embrace  all  the  instances  of  our  Saviour's  attendance  in  Jerusalem  at  any  of  the  feasts." 

2  So  Riggenbach,  408. 

3  Ebrard  avoids  this  objection,  but  falls  into  another  as  great,  by  supposing  nothing 
recorded  beti\een  the  two  feasts  (John  v.  1  and  vii.  2),  but  the  sending  of  the  twelve  and 
;he  feeding  of  the  five  thousand. 


iOB  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IlL 

His  way  or  after  His  arrival,  He  hears  of  the  imjjrisoumeut  of  John, 
and  returus  to  Galilee  to  begin  His  work  there. 

Recent  writers  are  much  divided  in  ojjiuion. 

For  Purim:  Tisch.,  Meyer,  Stroud,  Pressense,  Wieseler,  Lange, 
Farrar,  Godet,  D wight,  M.  and  M.,  Baumlein,  Weiss. 

Pentecost:  Bengel,  Browne,  Lewin, Friedlieb, McClellan,Grenville. 

Passover :  Lightfoot,  Grotius,  Robinson,  Sepp,  Greswell,  Gardiner, 
Wordsworth,  Weitbrecht. 

Tabernacles:     Ewald,  Ebrard,  Licht. 

Day  of  Atonement :     Caspar!. 

Feast  of  Trumpets:     Westcott. 

Feast  of  Wood-gathering :     Edersheim. 

Undecided:     Tholuck,  Geikie,  Neander,  Alford,  Luthardt. 

For  early  opinions,  see  commentary  of  Maldonatus  in  loco,  also 
Bengel,  Meyer. 

At  this  feast  the  Lord  healed  an  impotent  man  at  the  pool  of 
Bethesda.  This  was  a  place  of  resort  for  the  sick,  and  its  waters 
were  supposed  to  have,  naturally  or  supernaturally,  healing 
virtue.*     Let  us  inquire  as  to  its  position. 

The  first  point  is  the  right  rendering  :  What  is  to  follow  the 
adjective,  "  sheej:),"  —  irpo^ariK^  ?  In  A.  V.,  "There  is  by  the  sheep 
market  a  pool";  in  R.  V.,  "by  the  sheep  gate''''  ;  others  render  it, 
"There  is  by  the  sheep  pool  a  fooV'  (so  DeSaulcy,  M.  andM.); 
others  still,  "  There  is  by  the  sheep  pool  a  "  place  "  or  "  building  "  (so 
Meyer,  Weiss).  The  Evangelist's  intention  plainly  is  to  define  the 
position  of  the  pool  Bethesda  by  reference  to  another  place,  whether 
market,  or  gate,  or  pool.  If  "  market  "  be  inserted,  there  is  the  ob' 
jection  that  no  sheep  market  is  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament.  \ 
There  is  mention  of  the  "sheep  gate"  (Neh.  iii.  33;  xii,  39),  but  if 
the  Evangelist  meant  this,  why  not  mention  it  ?  If  we  insei't  "pool," 
where  it  is  said  by  some  the  sacrifices  were  washed,  we  have  no  ac- 
count of  any  such  "sheep  pool,"  nor  is  there  any  proof  that  the 
sacrifices  were  washed  before  offering.  For  the  washing  of  the  en- 
trails there  was  in  the  temple  a  washing  room  (Lightfoot,  in  loco),  but 
that  there  was  a  jiool  where  they  were  washed,  is  only  conjecture.  It 
seems,  therefore,  more  probable  that  the  pool  obtained  its  name  from 
the  sheep  gate  in  its  vicinity;  and  this  gate  is  placed  by  many  at 
the  east  or  northeast  side  of  the  temijle,  and,  perhaps,  is  the  same  as 
the  present  St.  Stephen's  gate. 

1  It  will  be  remembered  that  verse  4,  "  For  an  angel  went  down  at  a  certain  season 
into  the  pool,  ff.,"  is  of  doubtful  genuineness.  It  is  omitted  by  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.,  and 
ni  tlip  R.  v.  See  Trench,  Mir.  203.  It  is  said  by  Pitsoy,  Baptism,  277,  tha*  the  fathers  un- 
derstood a  "certain  season  "  to  mean  yearly,  aud  that  the  annual  cure  was  at  IVntecost. 


Part  TIL]  POOL   OF   BETHESDA.  109 

The  uame  Bethesda  gives  us  no  certain  information,  the  right 
reading  being  in  dispute.  Some  ancient  authorities  liaving  Bethsaida, 
otliers  Bethzatha  (the  last  is  adopted  by  W.  and  H.,  Tisch.,  B.  V. 
Margin.  See  Edersheim,  i.  4C2;  Qt.  St.,  1888,  p.  134).  If,  as  has 
been  said,  Bethzatha  is  the  same  as  Bezetlia,  the  hill  north  of  the 
temple,  the  name  may  be  local  —  the  pool  of  Bezetha.  If  the 
name  Bethesda  be  retained,  it  is  generally  rendered  "  the  house  of 
mercy,"  domus  lenignitatis  —  perhaps,  as  Meyer  suggests,  "  a  charit- 
able foundation  "  ;  others,  "house of  offence."  (See  Herzog,  Encyc, 
ii.  118,  and  commentators.) 

We  turn  now  to  tradition.  Eusebius,  Onomasticon  as  translated 
by  Jerome,  speaks  of  Bethesda  as  a  pool  bearing  the  name  ProhatiJce, 
and  yet  as  having  two  parts :  Bethesda,  Piscina  in  Jerusalem  quae  voca- 
batur  —  haee  quinque  quondam  porticus  lialmit  ostendunturque  gemini 
lacus.  Of  these  one  is  filled  with  rain-water,  but  the  other  with  red 
water,  as  if  reddened  with  the  blood  of  the  victims  washed  in  it. 
Thus  the  name  Bethesda  seemed  to  have  included  two  pools  near 
each  other.  (So  in  Itin.  Hieros.  mention  is  made  of  twin  pools — • 
— piscinae  gemillares  —  qiiae  appellantur  Betlisadi.) 

Where  wei'e  these  twin  pools?  There  has  been  a  current  belief 
for  centuries  that  the  deep  excavation  on  the  northeast  corner  of  the 
temple  area  known  as  Birket  Israel,  is  Bethesda.  It  is  said  by  De 
Saulcy  (ii.  285):  "  The  two  pools  of  St.  John's  gospel  were  close  to,  and 
in  communication  with,  each  other — piscinae  gemillares — probably 
by  the  vaulted  arches  which  are  still  to  be  seen  at  the  extremity  of 
Birket  Israel.  One  of  these  pools  was  the  Probatica,  the  other, 
Bethesda."  But  Robinson  (i.  293)  says:  " There  is  not  the  slightest 
evidence  that  can  identify  them,  and  the  tradition  goes  no  further 
back  than  the  thirteenth  century."  With  Robinson  almost  all  now 
agree.  It  is  the  general  opinion  that  this  excavation,  360  feet  lon'g,  130 
broad,  and  75  deep,  was  a  part  of  the  trench  that  ouce  separated  the 
temple  enclosure  from  the  adjoining  hill,  that  it  extended  to  the 
northwest  corner  of  Antouia,  and  that  it  was  afterward  used  as  a 
reservoir.  Fergusson,  on  the  other  hand,  affirms  that  it  was  always 
meant  for  a  reservoir. 

Putting  Birket  Israel  aside,  two  other  pools  have  been  suggested, 
both  fed,  as  supposed,  by  intermittent  springs:  the  fountain  of  the 
Virgin,  which  Robinson  adopts;  and  the  fountain  on  the  west  side  of 
the  temple  area  now  called  Hamman  Esh-Shifa.  (See  Williams,  Holy 
City,  ii.  458.)  But  these  are  both  single  pools,  and  the  last  has  no 
claim  to  be  called  intermittent.  (Another  view  in  Stewart,  Tent  and 
Khan,  277  ff.,  and  another  in  Barclay,  326.)  Some  have  thought  tliat 
these  pools  may  lie  under  the  convent  of  the  Sisters  of  Zion,  a  little 


200 


THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 


[Part  III. 


to  the  northwest  of  the  temple.  Thus  Sir  C.  Wilson  says:  ''These 
accounts  seem  to  indicate  that  Bethesda  was  identical  with  the  twin 
pools  now  known  as  the  Souterrains  of  the  convent.  Here  are  two 
pools  in  the  rock,  side  by  side,  with  a  partition  five  feet  wide  between 
them."  (Qt.  St.,  1872,  147;  Qt.  St.,  1888,  137.)  Lightfoot  thinks 
Si  loam,  to  whose  waters  he  ascribes  supernatural  virtues,  to  be 
Betliesda.  In  regard  to  the  latter,  he  says :  ' '  The  general  silence 
of  the  Jews  about  the  wondrous  virtue  of  this  pool  is  something 
strange,  who,  in  the  abundant  praises,  and  particularly  of  Jerusalem, 
yet  speak  not  one  word,  that  I  have  ever  found,  toward  the  story  of 
Bethesda." 


'  Souterrains  at  the  Con- 
vent of  the  Sisters  of  Zion. 

'  Recently  discovered 
pools. 

^  Church  of  St.  Anne. 

*  Pool  Birket  Israel. 

^  Haram  Area. 

^  Platform  of  the  Dome 
of  the  Rock. 


No.  1. 


No.  2.    Plan  of  the  Two  Pools. 

But  very  recent  explorations  seem  to  leave  little  doubt  that  the 
jjool  Bethesda  is  to  be  found  a  little  northwest  of  the  church  of 
St.  Anne,  and  not  far  from  the  present  St.  Stephen's  gate.  In  1856, 
the  site  of  this  church,  perhajis  built  as  early  as  the  seventh  century, 
and  rebuilt  in  the  twelfth,  was  given  by  the  Sultan  to  the  French; 
and,  clearing  up  the  ruins,  they  discovered  a  pool  about  100  feet  to 
the  northwest,  lying  under  a  small  church,  of  which  a  part  of  the  apse 
remains.  The  pool  is  55  feet  in  length,  east  and  west,  and  12  in 
breadth;    but    perhaps    these    dimensions    should    be    reversed,    the 


Part  III.]  POOL   OF  BETHESDA.  201 

breadth  being  55  feet,  and  the  length  north  and  south  undetermined, 
since  the  north  wall  is  wooden,  and  the  pool  may  have  been  much 
longer  than  now  appears.  It  is  cut  in  solid  rock  to  the  depth  of  thirty 
feet,  and  there  are  remaining  the  bases  of  five  pillars  cut  out  of  the 
rock.  Upon  the  top  of  these  pillars  was  formerly  a  stone  roofing, 
and  upon  these  were  probably  j^laced  the  five  arches  mentioned  in  the 
Gospel,  and  which  were  afterwards  destroyed.  There  are  twenty-four 
steps  originally  cut  in  the  rock,  and  thus  it  would  be  very  diflicult 
for  the  lame  and  feeble  to  get  down  to  the  water. 

Sometime  after  this  discovery  a  second  pool  was  discovered,  lying 
to  the  west  of  the  first,  but  no  full  statement  respecting  it  has  yet 
been  made. 

It  is  admitted  that  these  new  pools  lie  in  the  very  place  w^here 
tradition  placed  them,  and  where  they  would  now  be  looked  for. 
Says  Sir  C.  Wilson:  "  The  pilgrims,  in  their  accounts  of  Jerusalem, 
generally  describe  the  pool  with  five  arches  as  near  the  church  of  St. 
Anne."  Saewulf  (1102  A.  D.,  Early  Trav.,  41)  speaks  of  the  church 
of  St.  Anne,  and  near  it  the  pool  called  in  the  Hebrew  Bethsaida, 
having  five  porticoes  of  which  the  Gospel  speaks.  (See  Maundeville, 
Early  Trav.,  172:  "In  that  church  is  a  well,  in  manner  of  a  cistern, 
which  is  called  Probatica  Piscina,  which  hath  five  entrances."  Rob., 
1.  331,  Qt.  St.,  1888,  125.)  From  these  and  other  early  testimonies, 
Williams  (Holy  City,  ii.  483)  inferred  that  in  this  place  the  pool  would 
be  found.  See  Prof.  Paine  in  The  Independent,  Aug.  16,  1888,  who 
regards  the  "identification  as  complete." 

There  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  lost  pool  has  been  found. 
This  is,  however,  questioned  by  Conder,  apparently  upon  the  ground 
that  there  is  no  proof  that  the  water  of  the  pool  recently  found  was 
intermittent.  The  matter  cannot  be  considered  as  absolutely  deter- 
mined ;  we  must  await  further  investigation. 


As  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man  took  j^lace  on  the  Sabbath,  it 
gave  the  Jews  the  desired  opportunity  of  accusing  Him  of  a  breach  of 
the  law ;  and  it  seems,  indeed,  as  if  the  Lord  desired  to  judge  their 
whole  system  of  legal  righteousness  by  an  emphatic  condemnation  of 
the  interpretation  they  gave  to  one  of  the  most  important  of  the  com- 
mandments. Lightf oot  {in  loco)  observes :  "  It  is  worthy  our  obser- 
vation that  our  Saviour  did  not  think  it  enough  merely  to  heal  the 
impotent  man  on  the  Sabbath  day,  which  was  against  their  rules,  but 
farther  commanded  him  to  take  up  his  bed,  which  was  much  more 
against  that  rule."  A  rigid  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  even  to  the 
prohibition  of  the  healing  of  the  sick  on  that  day  (Luke  xiii.  14), 
was  a  main  element  of  Pharisaic  righteousness,  and  therefore  on  this 


^2  t,IF*E!  of   OUR  LORD.  [i'art  ill 

point  He  took  issue  with  them.'  It  is  said  by  Presscnse :  ''Ultra 
s(d>I)atarianiHm  was  the  very  genius  of  the  Pliarisaic  religion."  Ac- 
cording to  the  order  we  follow,  it  was  the  first  time  that  lie  had  iicaled 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  the  question  how  such  a  work  should  be  regarded, 
whether  as  lawful  or  unlawful,  came  before  the  ecclesiastical  author- 
ties  at  Jerusalem  for  their  decision.  That  they  decided  it  to  be 
unlawful  appears  from  the  angry  opposition  which  subsequent  cases 
of  healing  on  that  day  called  forth. 

The  grounds  of  our  Lord's  defense  (vs.  17-47)  must  be  here  con- 
sidered. But  first  the  question  arises.  Before  whom  was  it  spoken? 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  He  was  now  brought  before  the  San- 
hedrin.  (So  Licht.,  Meyer,  Lange,  Tholuck,  Edersheim:  "  The 
masters  in  Israel";  Farrar:  "summoned  before  the  great  Rabbis  and 
chief  priests.")  That  some  interval  of  time  elapsed  between  verses  17 
and  19  is  probable.  That  those  before  whom  the  Lord  now  stood, 
were  the  same  who  sent  the  Deputation  from  Jerusalem  to  the  Bap- 
tist, appears  from  verse  33:  "Ye  sent  unto  John,  and  he  bare  wit- 
ness unto  the  truth."  Thus  regarded  as  spoken  before  the  ecclesias- 
tical rulers  and  masters,  and  His  final  testimony  to  them  before  He 
entered  upon  a  new  stage  of  His  work,  His  words  demand  our  special 
attention. 

The  right  of  the  Lord  to  heal  on  the  Sabbath  day  He  puts  on  the 
ground  of  His  divine  Sonship.  As  the  Son,  He  did  nothing  of  Him- 
self, He  did  only  what  His  Father  did:  "  My  Father  worketh  hitherto, 
and  I  work."  This  defense  only  angered  them  the  more,  because 
"  He  made  Himself  equal  with  God."  This  Sonship  they  could  not 
comprehend;  it  was  not  an  element  that  entered,  at  least  distinctly, 
into  their  Messianic  conceptions.  There  was  much  confusion  in  the 
Jewish  mind  as  to  the  person  of  the  Messiah  and  His  prerogatives, 
most  regarding  Him  as  a  mere  man  to  be  raised  up  of  God  for  their 
deliverance ;  and  as  to  the  respective  works  to  be  wrought  by  Him  and 
by  Jehovah  at  the  setting  up  of  the  Messianic  kingdom.  Would  the 
Messiah  raise  the  dead  and  sit  in  judgment,  or  would  Jehovah?  The 
Lord's  words  carried  the  Messianic  claims  far  beyond  the  general 
belief;  they  seemed  to  affirm  an  equality  with  Jehovah  in  His  actings 
which  was  blasphemous.  They  were  also  very  mysterious.  Not 
content  with  claiming  to  be  the  executor  of  His  Father's  will  in  all 
His  works,  even  the  highest  —  those  of  resurrection  and  judgment — ■ 
He  adds:  "As  the  Father  hath  life  in  Himself,  so  hath  He  given  to 
the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself";  thus  pointing  to  Himself  as  the 
second  Adam,  to  become  in  resurrection  the  new  and  immortal  Head 
of  the  race  in  the  Messianic  age. 

'  See  Eders.,  ii.  56  fE.,  and  Appendix  17. 


Part  III.]        HEALING   OF  THE   IMPOTENT   MAN.  203 

Having  stated  His  relation  to  His  Father  and  His  claim  to  equal 
honor,  He  proceeds  to  state  the  evidences  of  His  divine  mission.  He 
accepts  the  truth  that  a  man's  own  testimony  is  not  sufficient.  But 
there  was  other  testimony:  1st,  that  of  the  Baptist,  borne  publicly, 
and  of  which  they  had  official  knowledge;  2d,  that  of  His  works 
wrought  in  the  name  and  in  the  power  of  the  Father,  a  sufficient  proof 
that  God  had  sent  Him  (see  John  iii.  3,  "No  man  can  do  these  miracles 
that  Thou  doest  except  God  be  with  Him");  3d,  that  given  by  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  Many  refer,  verse  37,  "the  Father  Himself  which 
hath  sent  me  hath  borne  witness  of  me,"  to  the  voice  heard  at  His 
baptism  and  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  upon  Him.  But  if  evidence  to 
the  Jews,  they  must  have  heard  the  voice  and  seen  the  dove  (Matt.  iii. 
17,  which  apparently  they  did  not.)  Why  then,  did  they  not  receive 
Him?  Because  they  had  not  the  love  of  God  in  tliem.  They  had  the 
Scriptures  and  searched  them  but  did  not  understand  them,  because 
"His  word  did  not  abide  in  them."  A  Messiah  not  honored  by 
men,  though  honored  by  God,  they  could  not  receive.  Coming  in 
the  name  of  His  Father  they  rejected  Him,  but  another  coming  in 
his  own  name  they  would  receive.  It  was  Moses  who  accused  them 
of  unbelief,  for  he  wrote  of  Him,  and  disbelieving  Moses  they  dis- 
believed Him. 

The  Lord's  justification  of  Himself  before  the  Sanhedrin  based 
upon  His  divine  Sonship  and  His  equality  with  God,  only  the  more 
inflamed  the  anger  of  His  enemies.  He  had  broken  the  law  of  the 
Sabbath  by  healing  the  impotent  man  on  that  day,  and  now  He  puts 
forth  in  defense  blasphemous  claims  to  be  greater  than  the  Messiah, 
even  to  be  equal  with  God.  With  such  a  law-breaker  and  blas- 
phemer there  could  be  no  peace.  It  was  a  duty  to  reject  Him,  nay 
more,  to  put  Him  to  death. 

Thus,  His  presentation  of  Himself  to  the  nation  in  its  chiefs  had 
been  unavailing.  It  only  brought  out  their  enmity  into  fuller  mani- 
festation, and  showed  how  unprepared  were  all  —  priests,  scribes,  and 
elders  —  to  receive  Him.  The  suspicion  with  which  they  had  regarded 
Him  from  the  first,  arising  from  His  peculiar  relations  to  the  Bap- 
tist, whom  they  disliked  and  whose  baptism  they  refused,  had  con- 
tinually strengthened;  and  this  His  defense  brought  their  hostility 
to  a  head.  Whether  any  official  action  was  now  taken,  does  not 
appear;  but  it  is  not  improbable,  since  the  Evangelist  a  little  later 
explains  the  fact  of  His  ministry  in  Galilee  by  saying  that  He  could 
not  walk  in  Jud«a  "because  the  Jews  sought  to  kill  Him."  From 
this  we  may  iufer  that  it  was  then  determined  upon  to  seize  Him  and 
put  Him  to  death  if  found  in  Judaja.     (Compare  verses  35-33.)     From 


204  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  III. 

this  province  He  was  thus,  by  the  act  of  the  ecclesiastical  rulers, 
excluded. 

It  is  well  said  by  EUicott  (141):  "This  is  the  turning  point  in 
the  Gospel  history.  Up  to  this  time  the  preaching  of  our  Lord  at 
Jerusalem  and  in  Judiea  had  met  with  a  certain  degree  of  toleration, 
and  in  many  cases  even  of  acceptance;  but  after  this  all  becomes 
changed.  Henceforth  the  city  of  David  is  no  meet  or  safe  abode  for 
the  Son  of  David ;  the  earthly  house  of  His  Heavenly  Father  is  no 
longer  a  secure  hall  of  audience  for  the  preaching  of  the  Eternal 
Son." 

It  will  be  well  at  this  point  to  consider  the  Lord's  rejection  by  the 
Jews  at  Jerusalem,  both  as  to  its  grounds,  and  its  effects  upon  His  sub- 
secpient  ministry.  The  warrant  for  this  rejection  was  found  in  the 
direction  given  in  Deuteronomy  xiii.  1-5,  by  which  to  test  the  claims 
of  one  pretending  to  a  divine  mission.  The  sign  or  wonder  which 
he  might  give,  was  not  to  be  of  itself  sufficient  proof;  his  words  and 
teaching  must  also  be  taken  into  account.  If  he  spake  anything  con- 
trary to  the  law,  the  wonder  or  sign  did  not  compel  the  people  to 
give  him  credence:  rather  they  must  reject  him,  and  if  he  taught 
idolatry,  must  put  him  to  death.  (See  Cohen,  Les  Deicides,  Paris, 
1864.) 

Let  us  admit  that  this  divine  direction  was  to  the  Jews  of  the  Lord's 
day  the  rule  of  their  action.  Jesus  appeared  before  them  as  one  sent  of 
God;  He  was  to  l^e  tested  by  a  two-fold  standard.  His  words  and  His 
works.  His  words  were  of  the  first  importance,  His  works  were  sub- 
ordinate. A  man  might  be  a  prophet  and  prophesy  and  teach,  and 
yet  work  no  miracle,  as  was  the  case  with  most  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophets.  It  was  their  words  that  proved  their  divine  mission.  If 
Jesus  had  claimed  to  be  simply  a  prophet,  one  sent  from  God  with 
a  message,  He  need  not  work  any  miracle;  His  message  w^ould 
prove  itself  by  its  conformity  to  the  law,  and  by  its  spirit.  It 
would  appeal  to  the  spiritual  discernment  of  the  people  (John  x.  4  ff.). 
Conformity  to  the  old  revelation,  and  a  true  development  of  it,  was 
the  test  of  the  new ;  and  it  was  in  this  w^ay  that  the  Baptist  attested 
his  mission. 

But  if  He  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  He  must  give  the  appointed 
signs,  for  the  Messiah's  work  was  a  great  step  forward;  His  coming 
brought  in  a  new  epoch.  The  proof  that  sufficed  for  a  prophet,  would 
not  suffice  for  the  Messiah.  There  must  be  both  the  word  of  truth 
and  the  sign  or  wonder;  and  more,  He  must  set  up  the  Messianic  king- 
dom. 

What,  then,  might  the  Jews  rightly  demand  of  Jesus  as  the  Mes- 
siah, as  to  His  teaching,  and  as  to  His  work?     1st,  that  jjcrsonally  He 


Part  III.]  RETURN  TO   GALILEE.  205 

would  keep  the  law,  and  would,  enforce  its  universal  observance ;  2d, 
that  He  would  fulfill  the  words  of  the  prophets  as  to  the  Messianic 
kingdom.  These  were  iu  themselves  just  demands,  but  they  implied 
two  things:  first,  that  they  themselves  knew  the  meaning  of  the  law, 
and  kept  it  without  adding  to  it  or  taking  from  it;  second,  that  their 
Messianic  beliefs  were  in  conformity  to  the  prophets.  But  in  both 
these  respects  they  failed.  They  had  added  to  the  law  many  tradi- 
tions, and  made  it  in  some  points  void,  and  in  many  others  burdensome. 
Therefore,  when  they  came  to  judge  His  teachings  and  acts  by  it, 
they  made  Him  a  transgressor  when  He  was  not ;  He  kept  the  law  in 
letter  and  in  spirit,  but  they  condemned  Him  for  not  keeping  it. 
Their  expectations,  also,  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  were  not  accord- 
ing to  the  prophets.  They  did  not  understand  that  the  people  nuist 
be  keeping  all  God's  ordinances,  must  be  obedient,  righteous,  holy, 
or  they  were  not  ready  for  the  Messiah.  The  prophets  always  spoke 
of  their  captivity  and  subjection  to  the  nations  around  them  as  a 
punishment  of  their  sins,  and  demanded  repentance  and  humble  con- 
fession as  a  preliminary  to  their  restoration.  The  Jews  in  this  day 
were  in  sore  bondage  under  the  Roman  yoke,  but  there  was  no  con- 
sciousness of  guilt  on  their  part,  no  true  sense  of  God's  anger  with 
them,  no  humiliation,  no  confession.  Therefore,  the  first  step  on 
God's  part  was  to  call  them  to  repentance ;  without  this  His  promises 
of  restoration  could  not  be  fulfilled.  .  But  they  did  not  hear  the  Bap- 
tist calling  them  to  repentance.  They  believed  that  the  Messiah 
would  take  them  in  their  then  condition,  organize  them,  overthrow 
the  Romans,  and  make  them  a  great  nation.  It  was  these  beliefs  and 
exjjectations  by  which  they  tested  the  Lord,  and  He  did  not  fulfill 
them.  On  the  contrary,  He  began  by  trying  to  awake  in  them  a  sense 
of  sin.  He  did  not  accept  their  traditions,  but  showed  them  plainly 
what  God  demanded  of  them;  He  did  not  even  assume  the  title  of 
the  Messiah,  lest  He  should  be  understood  as  confirming  their  un- 
founded hopes. 

Thus  we  see  that,  however  right  the  rule  of  their  action  in  demand- 
ing conformity  to  the  law  and  the  prophets  in  the  teachings  and 
works  of  one  claiming  a  divine  mission,  the  Jews  were  in  no  position 
to  apply  it  to  the  Lord ;  they  did  not  know  the  law,  they  did  not 
understand  the  prophets,  and  thus  had  no  right  criterion,  no  stand- 
ard by  which  to  judge  His  teachings  or  His  works. 

But  the  Lord  was  more  than  the  Messiah,  He  was  the  Incarnate  Son 
of  God.  He  did  not,  indeed,  now  present  Himself  as  such  to  the  Jews, 
but  He  could  not  separate  His  Person  from  His  office.  (See  .loan  iii. 
13.)     He  who  was  the  God-Man,  was  both  Prophet  and  Messiah.     The 


206  THE   LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Pan   III. 

Jews  understood  Him  to  assert  a  certain  filial  relation  to  God  as  Ijing 
at  the  basis  of  His  Mcssiahship,  a  kind  of  equality  with  the  Father. 
(Whether  His  words  here  imply  partaking  of  the  divine  essence,  or  an 
equality  in  action  and  honor,  is  a  matter  for  theological  interpreta- 
tion.) What  ground  should  the  Jews  take  in  regard  to  claims  like 
these?  They  could  reject  them  as  absolutely  incredible,  so  paljiably 
false  as  to  be  self-condemned ;  or  they  could  compare  them  with 
what  their  Scriptures  taught  them  of  the  Person  of  the  Messiah. 
They  took  the  first.  His  words  were  blasphemous,  and  on  this  ground 
He  was  put  to  death  (Matt.  Xxvi.  63  If.). 

But  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  Lord  did  not,  first  of  all,  reveal  the 
mystery  of  His  Person.  This  revelation  could  be  made  only  when  those 
who  had  received  Him  as  the  Messiah  had  learned  through  His  teach- 
ing what  was  involved  in  the  title  Son  of  God.  It  was  as  more  than  a 
prophet  that  He  presented  Himself  to  the  people,  for  in  Him  all  the  pre- 
dictions of  the  prophets  were  to  be  fulfilled.  If  they,  seeing  His  works 
and  hearing  His  words,  received  Him  as  the  Messiah,  then  He  could 
lead  them  on  to  a  fuller  knowledge  of  His  Person,  and  reveal  to  them 
what  had  been  the  purpose  of  God  from  the  first — that  the  Word  should 
be  made  flesh  and  dwell  among  men.  But  to  those  who  could  not 
rise  above  the  current  worldly  conceptions  of  the  Messiah,  every  inti- 
mation which  He  gave  of  His  divine  Sonship  was  both  unintelligible 
and  ofifensive. 

We  have  also  to  ask,  What  was  the  effect  of  this  rejection  by  the 
rulers  upon  the  Lord's  subsequent  ministry?  That  the  GaliUieans  were 
ignorant  of  their  hostility  toward  Him,  as  shown  by  their  attitude 
from  the  first,  and  especially  after  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man, 
is  not  probable.  He  went  down  into  Galilee  to  begin  His  ministry^ 
[there/as  a  proscribed  man,  one  under  the  ban;  whoever  accepted  Him 
as  the  Messiah,  or  even  as  a  prophet,  did  it  knowing  that  he  exposed 
himself  to  the  ill-will  and  rebukes  of  his  spiritual  leaders.  Whether 
the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  Sanhedrin  extended  to  all  parts 
of  the  land,  so  that  the  power  "  to  put  out  of  the  Synagogue"  (John 
ix.  32)  was  in  force  in  Galilee,  we  do  not  certainly  know,  but  proba- 
bly it  did.  (See  Schurer,  ii.  1.  185.)  Thus  it  demanded  a  high 
measuPB  of  faith  and  much  self-sacrifice  to  confess  Him  as  the  Mes- 
siah. In  a  real  sense  every  one  who  followed  Him  must  take  u]i  His 
cross.  The  call  to  leave  all  and  follow  Him,  even  if  attended  by  no 
civil  punishments,  could  be  heard  only  by  those  over  whom  truth  was 
all  powerful,  and  who  could  say  with  St.  Peter,  "Thou  hast  the 
words  of  eternal  life."  We  may  find  in  the  records  of  the  Galilaean 
ministry,  how  much  it  cost  to  be  known  as  one  of  His  adherents, 


Part  111.]  RETURN   TO   GALILEE.  207 

although   at  the   first   there   was  a  strong  popular   feeling  in   His 
favor, 

X'  With  this  miracle,  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man,  the  Lord's 
^J^udsean  work,  or  the  first  stage  of  His  ministry,  came  to  an  end. 
As  Jesus  now  left  Judaea,  and  only  returned  to  it  after  a  consid- 
erable interval,  and  then  only  for  very  brief  periods  at  the  feasts,  His 
enemies  in  that  province  had  little  opportunity  to  arrest  Him.  We 
know,  however,  that  in  point  of  fact  they  attempted  to  do  so  at  the 
very  first  feast  He  attended  (John  vii.  32).  So  long  as  He  was  in 
Galilee,  all  they  could  do  to  Him  was  to  watch  His  proceedings  there, 
and  seize  upon  every  occasion  that  presented  itself  to  destroy  His 
reputation,  and  hinder  His  work.  How  zealously  they  labored  to 
this  end  will  appear  as  our  history  proceeds. 


PART  lY. 

FROM  TPIE  IMPRISONMENT  TO  THE  DEATH  OF  JOHN  THE  BAB 
TIST ;  OR  FROM  APRIL,  781,  TO  MARCH,  782.    A.  D.  28,  29. 


The  Lord's  Ministry  in   Galilee  io  the  Death  of  the  Baptist. 

Of  the  general  character  of  the  Lord's  work  in  Galilee,  as 
distinguished  from  His  work  in  Judaea,  we  have  already  spoken, 
when  considering  the  divisions  of  His  ministry.  It  is  in  the  light 
of  this  distinction  that  certain  remarkable,  and  to  some  readers 
perplexing,  featui'es  of  the  synoptical  Gospels  find  their  explana- 
tion. As  is  patent  upon  their  narratives,  they  relate  nothing  that 
the  Lord  did  prior  to  John  the  Baptist's  imprisonment.  Only 
from  the  Evangelist  John  do  w£  learn  that  His  field  of  labor,  till 
the  Baptist  was  imprisoned,  was  Judsea.  Here  His  time  was 
spent  from  the  Passover  of  780  till  the  December  following,  and 
if  He  resided  in  Galilee  a  few  weeks  till  the  feast  (John  v.  1), 
as  He  seems  to  have  done,  this  was  in  consequence  of  the  enmity 
of  the  Jews,  and  the  time  was  apparently  spent  in  seclusion. 
So  far  as  the  narratives  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  go^  the 
beginning  of  His  public  labors  is  to  be  dated  from  the  time 
when,  the  Baptist  being  cast  into  prison,  He  went  from  Judsea 
into  Galilee.  They  all  assume  that  He  was  in  Judaaa  up  to  this 
time,  this  being  the  province  to  which  His  early  labors  were 
confined.  The  reasons  why  they  pass  over  in  silence  this  first 
year  of  His  ministry,  and  why  they  bring  His  work  in  Galilee 
into  such  close  connection  with  the  Baptist,  we  now  proceed  to 
consider. 

The  silence  of  the  Synoptists  respecting  the  Judsean  work  of 
the  Lord  will  not  appear  strange,  if  we  recall  the  purpose  and 
result  of  that  work.  As  we  have  seen,  John,  after  the  bap- 
tism of  Jesus,  was  visited  by  a  Deputation  of  priests  and  Levites 
from  Jerusalem,  to  whom  he  bore  formal  witness  that  the  Messiah 

(309) 


210  THE   LIFE    OP   OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

had  come  (John  i.  19-28).  Perhaps,  also,  he  pointed  out  Jesus 
to  them  in  person.  It  was  now  a  question  distinctly  before  the 
ecclesiastical  rnlers,  Would  they  receive  Jesus  thus  pointed  out 
to  them  as  the  Christ,  or  reject  Him  ?  As  they  took  no  steps  to 
seek  Him,  thus  showing  their  disregard  of  the  Baptist's  testi- 
mony, at  the  first  feast  after  this  testimony  He  appeared  in  the 
temple,  and  there  assumed  authority  to  purge  it.  He  also 
worked  miracles,  and  taught,  and  many  believed  in  Him  as 
one  sent  from  God.  Still  the  ecclesiastical  rulers  did  not  receive 
Him.  He  therefore  begins  to  baptize  ;  but  they  do  not  come 
to  His  baptism  ;  the  gathering  to  Him  of  the  people  only  aug- 
ments their  hostility;  and  they  seek  to  cast  impediments  in  His 
way  by  sowing  dissensions  between  His  disciples  and  those  of 
John.  As  they  will  not  come  to  receive  baptism,  or  be  taught  by 
Him,  no  further  step  can  now  be  taken  in  the  regular  develop- 
ment of  His  Messianic  work.  He,  therefore,  ceases  to  baptize,  and 
retires  from  Judaea.  Still  the  time  is  not  yet  come  for  Him  to 
begin  His  work  in  Galilee,  for  the  Baptist  is  at  liberty,  and 
through  his  witness  and  labors  the  rulers  may  yet  be  brought  to 
repentance,  and  the  nation  be  saved.  He  will  wait  till  His  fore- 
runner has  finished  his  work  ere  He  commences  His  new  work  in 
Galilee.'  Once  more  He  presents  Himself  in  Jerusalem  at  a  feast, 
and  works  a  miracle,  but  is  called  a  blasphemer,  and  His  life  is 
endangered  ;  and  John's  ministry  also  comes  to  a  sudden  and 
untimely  end.  The  Baptist  is  shut  up  in  prison,  and  can 
bear  no  further  witness.  There  is  now  no  place  for  the  Lord 
in  Judaea.  All  the  labors  of  the  Baptist  and  His  -own  labors 
had  been  unavailing  to  turn  the  hearts  of  those  in  authority,  and 
to  insure  His  reception  as  the  Messiah.  By  their  own  unbelief, 
those  who  sat  in  Moses'  seat,  the  priests  and  Levites,  had  made  it 
impossible  that  He  could  use  them  in  His  service,  and  continu- 
ing to  reject  Him  they  themselves  must  be  rejected.  The 
Mosaic  institutions  must  be  set  aside,  and  their  priesthood  cease  ; 
the  defiled  temple  be  destroyed,  and  the  Christian  Church  be 
founded. 

It  is  here  that  we  find  the  essential  distinction  between  the 
Lord's  work  in  Judaea  and  that  in  Galilee.  The  former  had  ref- 
erence to  the  Jewish  people  in  their  corporate  capacity,  a  nation 


Part  IV^.]  THE   MINISTRY   IN   GALILEE.  211 

in  covenant  with  God;  He  addressed  Himself  to  the  nation  as 
represented  in  its  ecclesiastical  rulers,  and  aimed  to  produce  in 
them  that  sense  of  sin,  and  that  true  repentance,  which  were  indis- 
pensable to  His  reception.  The  latter  was  based  upon  the  fact 
that  the  ecclesiastical  rulers  of  the  Jews  did  not  receive  Him, 
anThad  sought  to  kill  Him  ;  and  that,  therefore,  if  they  persisted 
in  their  wickedness,  God  was  about  to  cast  them  out  of  their 
peculiar  relations  to  Him,  and  establish  a  church,  of  which  the 
elect  of  all  nations  should  be  members  (Matt.  viii.  11,  12).  Go- 
ing into  Galilee,  the  Lord  will  gatlier  there  a  body  of  disciples, 
who  shall  bear  witness  to  Him  before  the  nation;  but  who,  if  this 
testimony  is  unavailing,  will  serve  as  the  foundations  of  the  new 
institutions  resting  upon  the  New  Covenant. 

Thus  the  departure  from  Judse  i  into  Galilee  does  not  imply 
that  the  Lord  regarded  this  rejection  of  Himself  by  the  Jews  as 
final,  and  that  nothing  remained  but  to  lay  new  foundations  and 
choose  a  new  priesthood.  He  will  leave  Judoea,  but  after  a  time  He 
will  return.  He  will  to  the  last  make  every  effort  to  save  them 
(Matt,  xxiii.  37).  His  work  in  Galilee  still  has  reference  to  national 
salvation  through  the  faith  of  those  who  should  believe  on  Him 
there;  and  to  this  end,  as  we  shall  see.  He  sent  out  the  seventy 
at  the  close  of  the  Galilean  ministry.  If,  however,  the  nation 
will  not  hear  them,  then  frojn  among  them  He  will  select  those 
who  shall  take  the  place  of  tlie  priests  of  the  Aaronic  line,  and 
be  builders  and  rulers  under  Him  —  the  Stone  which  the  builders 
had  refused,  but  now  become  the  Head  of  the  corner. 

Thus  it  will  not  appear  strange  that  the  Synoptists,  writing 
after  all  these  events  liad  developed  themselves,  and  when  the  Jews 
had  lost  their  high  place  by  disobedience,  and  the  new  Covenant 
had  been  established,  should  pass  over  in  silence  the  Lord's 
Judaean  work.  It  was,  indeed,  a  matter  of  highest  interest  to  the 
Jews,  but  regarded  in  its  relations  to  the  Christian  Church,  its 
mention  was  comparatively  unimportant;  and  the  Synoptists 
could  well  commence  their  narratives  with  that  work  in  Galilee, 
which,  looking  forward  to  the  future,  was  already  developing  it- 
self so  widely  and  powerfully.  It  was  comparatively  of  little  mo 
ment  that  their  Gentile  readers  should  know,  in  detail,  that  the 
Lord  first  began  His  labors  in  JudaBa,  and  that,  after  a  few  months 


212  THE  LIP'E  OF  OUR   LORD.  [Part  IV. 

He  was  compelled  to  abandon  them  through  the  enmity  of  the 
rulers;  since  all  Christians  knew  in  general  that  He  was  finally 
rejected  by  them,  and  suffered  death  at  their  hands.  But  the 
Galilean  work  was  of  the  highest  moment,  as  it  marked  where  the 
dividing  line  began  between  the  old  and  the  new,  between  Moses 
and  Christ.  And  this  may  also  explain  their  silence  in  respect 
to  the  feasts  which  the  Lord  attended  while  in  Galilee,  and  are  men- 
tioned by  John.  Any  transient  work  at  Jerusalem,  addressing 
itself  especially  to  the  hierarchy,  had  had  no  important  bearing 
upon  the  great  result,  as  time  had  shown,  and  need  not  therefore 
be  mentioned  by  them. 

Thus  the  silence  of  the  Synoptists  respecting  the  early  work 
of  Jesus  in  Judaea  is  satisfactorily  explained ;  and  we  also  see  why 
the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist  is  made  so  prominent  in  their 
narratives.  It  marks  the  time  when  He  left  Judaea  for  Galilee, 
and  is  thus  the  great  turning  point  in  His  ministry.  So  long  as 
John  was  free  •  to  prosecute  his  work  of  calling  the  nation  to 
repentance.  He  could  take  no  steps  looking  forward  to  the  es- 
tablishment of  new  institutions.  He  could  not  begin  to  preach 
or  teach  in  Galilee.  But  John  in  prison  could  no  more  prepare 
His  way,  could  no  more  testify  of  Him  to  the  nation,  or  ad- 
minister the  baptism  of  repentance.  The  voice  of  the  forerunner 
thus  silenced,  Jesus,  departing  to  Galilee,  can  there  begin  Him- 
self to  preach,  and  to  gather  disciples,  and  to  prepare  them  for 
their  future  work. 

As  the  primary  object  of  the  ministry  in  Galilee  was  to 
gather  disciples,  the  Lord  directs  His  teachings  and  works  to 
that  end.  Hence,  His  visits  to  all  parts  of  the  land,  His  use  of 
the  synagogues  for  preaching,  His  teachings  in  the  streets,  in 
the  fields,  upon  the  sea-shore,  wherever  the  people  gather  to  Him. 
He  speaks  to  all,  that  whoever  has  ears  to  hear  may  hear. 
Hence,  also,  His  readiness  to  heal  all  who  may  come  unto  Him, 
that  the  faith  which  the  word  coidd  not  draw  forth,  might  be 
drawn  forth  by  the  work.  Thus  by  degrees  He  gathered 
around  Him  the  most  spiritually-minded  and  receptive  of  the 
Galiteans,  and  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  adjacent  regions.  From 
these  in  due  time  He  chose  a  small  body  of  men  whom  He  kept  near 
Himself,  and  to  whom  He  explained  what  was  obscure  in  His 


Part  IV.]  THE   MINISTRY    IN   GALILEE.  213 

public  discourses,  as  they  were  able  to  hear;  and  these,  after  He 
had  instructed  them.  He  sent  forth  to  be  witnesses  to  the  peo- 
ple at  large. 

Thjs_work  ol^ Jesus  in  Galilee,  gathering  and  educating  His 
disciples,  continued  from  the  Passover  of  781  till  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles  in  782,  or  a  period  of  about  one  year  and  six  months. 
The  death  of  the  Baptist,  which  we  place  in  the  spring  of 
782,  had  an  important  bearing  upon  His  labors,  and  divides  this 
Galilean  ministry  into  two  parts,  which  are  easily  distinguish- 
able from  each  other.  The  grounds  of  this  distinction  will  be 
noted  hereafter.  Our  present  period  ends  with  the  Baptist's 
death.  The  important  events  that  mark  its  progress  will  be 
noticed  as  we  proceed. 

THE  PROVINCE   OF  GALILEE. 

This  departure  of  the  Lord  into  Galilee  to  make  this  the  field  of 
His  labors,  offers  us  a  fit  opportunity  to  describe  it  in  its  general 
features.'  Palestine  proper,  west  of  Jordan,  according  to  the  latest 
explorations,  has  about  6,000  square  miles,  and  Galilee  something 
less  than  a  third  of  this.  In  the  Lord's  day  it  was  very  populous. 
Josephus  (War,  iii.  3.  2)  says,  "the  towns  were  numerous,  and  the 
multitude  of  villages  so  crowded  with  men,  owing  to  the  fecundity 
of  the  soil,  that  the  smallest  of  them  contained  about  15,000  inhabi- 
tants"; and  in  his  Life  (xlv.  4),  incidentally  mentions  that  "there 
w^ere  204  cities  and  villages,"  thus  giving  it  a  population  of  more 
than  3,000,000.  Almost  all  writers  agree  that  this  is  an  exaggera- 
tion, but  Merrill  thinks  the  number  not  incredible.  Making  all 
allowance  for  this,  Galilee  must  have  been  very  full  of  people. 
(See  Raumer,  81,  who  cites  Dion  Cassius  as  stating  that  in  the  war 
under  Hadrian,  985  villages  of  the  Jews  w^ere  laid  waste.)  Nor 
w^ere  these  towns  and  villages  inert  and  sluggish,  but  full  of  life  and 
energy.  The  richness  of  the  soil  abundantly  repaid  the  labors  of  the 
cultivators,  and  it  was  a  thoroughfare  through  which  passed  great 
quantities  of  merchandise  from  Damascus  and  the  East  to  the  Medi- 
terranean, and  from  the  coast  to  the  interior.  The  lake  of  Galilee  was 
covered  with  ships  engaged  in  fishing  and  traflSc,  and  its  shores  were 
dotted  with  cities  and  villages.  Taricheae,  at  its  lower  end,  con- 
tained about  40,000  inhabitants  (Josephus,  War,  iii.  10.  10),  and 
there  were  other  cities  probably  not  less  populous.     In  a  region  so 

»See  "Galilee  at  the  time  of  Christ,"  hy  Kev.  S.  Merrill,  LL.D. ;  Conder,  Hand 
Book  ;  Stanley,  Sinai  and  Palestine  ;  SchUrer,  I.  ii.,  and  Lible  Dictionaries. 


JJ14  THE  LIFE  OE  OUR  LORD,  [Part  IV. 

fertile  by  nature,  and  inliabited  by  an  industrious  people,  there  could 
not  be  wanting  many  rich  families  ;  and  to  this  the  Gospels  bear  wit- 
ness, as  also  the  ruins  of  buildings,  palaces,  and  tombs.  It  was  a 
common  saying,  quoted  by  Edersheim :  "  If  a  person  wishes  to  be 
rich,  let  him  go  north;  if  he  wants  to  be  wise,  let  him  come  south." 

Although  patriotic  and  courageous,  there  was  for  a  long  time  little 
of  political  disturbance,  Galilee  standing  in  this  respect  in  striking  con- 
trast with  Judsea  under  the  Roman  governors.  After  Herod  the 
Great's  death,  Galilee  and  Peraea  were  allotted  by  the  emperor  to  his 
son  Herod  Antipas,  who  ruled  there  during  the  Lord's  whole  life. 
This  shows  that  his  general  administration,  whatever  his  personal 
character,  was  not  cruel  or  unjust.  But  the  spirit  of  nationalism  was 
stronger  in  Galilee  than  in  Judaea,  and  any  tidings  of  a  coming  Mes- 
siah were  more  gladly  received. 

It  is  generally  said  that  Galilee,  being  surrounded  on  the  east  and 
south  and  west  by  alien  peoples,  had  in  it  a  large  foreign  and  heathen 
element,  and  that  its  inhabitants  were  much  less  strict  in  the  observ- 
ance of  the  law  than  those  in  Judaja,  and  were  therefore  looked  down 
upon  by  the  latter,  and  treated  with  disdain  ("  out  of  Galilee  ariseth  no 
prophet,"  John  vii.  53).  Their  language  was  not  so  pure  (Matt.  xxvi. 
73),  nor  were  they  learned  in  the  law.  But  Merrill  thinks  these  charges 
of  ignorance  and  of  irreligion  unfounded,  and  denies  that  there  was 
so  large  a  heathen  element  as  is  asserted,  and  their  language  so 
corrupt.  Conder  (Hand-Book,  313)  agrees  with  him,  and  affirms 
that  although  "the  Talmudic  writers  speak  with  contempt  of  the 
Galihieans,  they  do  not  say  anything  which  would  lead  to  the  sup- 
position that  the  Galilaeans  were  less  orthodox  than  the  inhabitants 
of  Judaja."  But  we  may  infer  from  the  statements  of  Josephus  that, 
while  the  bulk  of  the  Galilasans  were  Jews,  there  were  many  Phoeni- 
cians, Arabians,  Syrians,  and  some  Greeks  among  them ;  and  if  so,  it 
was  natural,  perhaps  inevitable,  that  there  should  be  a  less  strict 
observance  of  the  law  than  in  Judaea,  more  freedom  from  traditional 
bonds,  more  openness  to  hear  new  things  (see  Eders.  i.  223  flf.). 

It  was  to  this  province  tliat  the  Lord  went  when  driven  from 
Judaea  by  the  ecclesiastical  rulers.  He  must  enter  upon  His  new 
work  of  gathering  disciples,  and  here  He  would  find  freedom  of  move- 
ment. The  Sanhedrin  had  no  civil  jurisdiction  in  Galilee,  and  the 
king  was  not  likely  to  interfere.  Indeed,  we  know  that  for  a  con- 
siderable time  he  took  no  notice  at  all  of  the  Lord  and  His  work, 
and  if  he  heard  of  Him,  looked  upon  Him  as  one  of  the  Rabbis  who 
was  gathering  disciples  around  Him,  and  His  work  without  political 
significance.     Not  till  the  Baptist's  death  did  he  desire  to  see  Him; 


Part  IV.]  THE  baptist's  IMPRISONMENT.  -       215 

and  thus  the  Lord,  unmolested  by  the  authorities,  —  for  the  alliance 
of  the  Pharisees  and  Herodians,  or  partisans  of  Herod  (Mark  iii.  6), 
was  apparently  without  the  knowledge  of  the  king,  —  could  visit 
all  parts  of  the  province,  and  teach  openly  in  all  places. 

That  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes  of  Galilee  stood  to  the  Lord  from 
the  first,  in  an  attitude  of  suspicion  and  dislike,  which  gradually  be- 
came one  of  positive  hostility,  appears  from  the  Synoptists,  and  will 
be  noticed  more  particularly  as  we  examine  them.  The  nationalists, 
or  those  opposed  to  all  foreign  domination,  affirming  that  God  alone 
was  their  king,  and  who  are  called  by  Josephus  the  Zealots,  do  not 
seem  at  this  time  to  have  been  politically  organized,  but  their  princi- 
ples were  spreading  among  the  people,  and  from  them  the  Lord  took 
one  of  His  apostles. 

April,  781.     A.  D.  28. 

The  Baptist  being  now  imprisoned,  tlie  Lord  leaves  Judaea  Matt.  iv.  12. 
and  goes  into  Galilee  to  begin  His  ministry  there.  In  His  Mark  i.  14,  15. 
progress  He  comes  to  Nazareth  and  teaelies  in  its  synagogue.  Luke  iv.  14,  15. 
His  words  enraging  the  people,  and  His  life  being  in  danger,  Luke  iv.  16-3L 
He  leaves  Nazareth,  and  going  to  Capernaum  there  takes  up  Matt.  iv.  1:^17. 
His  abode. 

The  manner  in  which  John  relates  what  the  Lord  did  in 
Galilee  up  to  the  time  of  the  feast  (v.  1)  shows  that  he  regarded 
Judaea  as  the  proper  field  of  His  labors  during  this  period,  and 
His  works  in  Galilee  as  only  exceptional.  Only  two  miracles 
were  wrought  in  Galilee  during  this  period,  and  both  when  He 
was  at  Cana  (John  ii.  1 ;  iv.  4G).  Of  the  first,  the  Evangelist  says: 
•'  This  beginning  of  miracles  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and 
manifested  forth  His  glory;  "  of  the  second:  "This  is  again  the 
second  miracle  that  Jesus  did,  when  He  was  come  out  of  Judaea 
into  Galilee."  Both  these  miracles  were  wrought  under  peculiar 
circumstances,  and  for  special  ends,  not  in  the  ordinary  coiirse  of 
His  ministry.  Those  wrought  by  Him  in  Jerusalem  at  the  first 
Passover  (John  ii.  23,  compare  iii.  2)  are  merely  alluded  to,  al- 
though they  seem  to  have  been  of  a  striking  character  ;  but 
these  are  specified  as  wrought  by  Jesus  coming  out  of  Judaea, 
the  proper  place  of  His  ministry,  into  Galilee  where  His  minis- 
try had  not  yet  begun,  John  not  being  imprisoned. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  Galilee  had  been  spoken  of 
several  centuries   before   the    Saviour's  birth   by   the   prophet 


216  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

Isaiah  (ix.  1,2)  as  that  part  of  the  Holy  Land  to  be  especially 
blessed  by  His  labors.  It  had  been  the  part  least  esteemed,  not 
only  because  in  the  di\dsion  of  the  kingdom  it  was  joined  to 
Israel  in  opposition  to  Judah,  but  also  as  especially  exposed 
to  foreign  invasion,  and  had  in  fact  been  repeatedly  con- 
quered. Here  was  the  greatest  admixture  of  foreign  elements, 
the  natural  result  of  these  conquests,  and  hence  the  name, 
"  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles."  The  prophet  mentions  the  two  tribes 
of  Zebulon  and  Napthali  as  peculiarly  depised;  and  within  the 
bounds  of  the  first  was  Nazareth,  and  within  the  bounds  of  the 
second  was  Capernaum.  How  wonderfully  this  prophecy,  so 
dark  in  its  Uteral  interpretation,  was  fulfilled,  the  history  of  the 
Lord's  ministry  shows.  His  own  in  Judaea  and  Jerusalem 
would  not  walk  in  His  Hght,  and  thus  it  was  that,  in  "  Galilee  of 
the  Gentiles,  the  people  which  sat  in  darkness  saw  great  light." 

To  the  prediction  of  Isaiah,  the  Evangelist  Matthew,  accord- 
ing to  his  custom,  calls  the  attention  of  his  readers,  and  affirms 
that  in  Galilee  thus  prophetically  marked  out  the  preaching  of 
the  Lord  actually  began  (iv.  17).  "From  that  time,"  that  is, 
from  the  imprisonment  of  John,  and  the  departure  into  Galilee 
that  immediately  followed  it,  "  Jesus  began  to  preach,"  etc.  "  His 
earlier  appearance  in  Judaea,  though  full  of  striking  incidents 
and  proofs  of  His  divine  legation,  was  preliminary  to  His 
ministry  or  preaching,  properly  so  called,  which  now  began." ' 
Luke  connects  His  teaching  in  the  synagogue  with  His  return 
into  Galilee  (iv.  14-15).  That  His  enemies  at  Jerusalem  re- 
garded His  labors  as  first  taking  positive  form  and  character  in 
Galilee,  appears  from  their  accusation  (Luke  xxiii.  5),  "  He 
stirreth  up  the  people,  teaching  throughout  all  Jewry,  beginning 
from  Galilee  to  this  place."  (See  also  the  words  of  Peter,  Acts 
X.  37,  "  That  word  which  was  published  throughout  all  Judaea, 
and  began  from.  Galilee.")  And  as  God  had  ordered  that 
Galilee  should  be  the  chief  theatre  of  His  teaching,  so  He 
providentially  overruled  the  political  arrangements  of  the  time 
that  He  could  labor  without  hindrance,  since  the  tetrarch 
Herod  Antipas  did  not  trouble  himself  concerning  any  ecclesi- 
astical movements  that  did  not  disturb  the  public  peace      And 

1  Alexander,  in  loco:  bo  Greswell,  ii.  274;  Stier,  on  Luke  iv.  18. 


Part  IV.]  THE   BAPTIST'S   IMPRISONMENT.  217 

here,   also,    tlie   people   were    less   under   the   influence   of  the 
hierarchy,  and  more  open  to  His  words. 

If  we  are  right  in  putting  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist 
just  before  the  unnamed  feast,  it  is  the  return  to  Galilee  after 
this  feast  that  is  meant  by  the  Synoptists  (Matt.  iv.  12;  Mark  i. 
14,  15;  Luke  iv.  14,  15.)  Comparing  their  account  of  what  fol- 
lowed this  return,  with  that  given  by  John  (iv.  43-54),  we  find 
full  proof  that  they  refer  to  different  periods.  According  to  the 
latter,  Jesus  went  to  Galilee,  not  to  begin  public  labors  but  to 
find  retirement.  The  prophet,  as  a  rule,  having  no  honor  in  his 
own  country.  He  might  well  hope  to  pass  the  time  there  in  seclu- 
sion, without  attracting  public  attention,  till  the  issue  of  John's 
ministry  was  determined.  He  did  not  indeed  find  the  privacy 
which  He  sought,  because  the  Galileans  had  been  eye-witnesses 
of  what  He  had  done  at  Jerusalem,  and  were  favorably  inclined 
toward  Him.  Very  soon  after  His  return  a  nobleman  from 
Capernaum  sought  His  aid;  but  aside  from  this,  there  is  no  in- 
dication that  He  performed  any  miracles  or  engaged  in  any  teach- 
ing. No  disciples  are  spoken  of  as  with  Him,  nor  any  crowds 
of  people.  Nor  when  He  goes  up  to  the  feast  (v.  1)  does  He 
appear  to  have  been  attended  by  any  disciples.  On  the  other 
hand,  according  to  the  Synoptists,  so  soon  as  He  heard  of  John's 
imprisonment  He  began  His  labors  in  Galilee,  very  early  gather- 
ing again  His  disciples,  and  working  miracles,  and  teaching  in  all 
the  synagogues.  His  fame  spread  immediately  through  the 
whole  region,  and  wherever  He  went  great  crowds  followed 
Him. 

Some  find  difficulty  iu  reconciling  the  Synoptists  with  John  ii. 
13;  iv.  46,  because  the  former  say  that  Jesus  went  to  Capernaum  to 
begin  His  ministry  after  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist.  But  these 
earlier  visits  they  might  well  pass  over  in  silence,  as  not  at  all  affecting 
the  general  fact  that  the  field  of  labor  during  the  first  part  of  His  min- 
istry was  JudiBa,  and  not  Galilee.  The  first  of  these  visits  to  Galilee 
was  before  the  first  Passover,  and  of  short  duration;  the  second  was 
after  the  work  in  Judaea  had  been  interrupted,  and  was  also  brief, 
and  neither  of  them  was  marked  by  public  labors.  He  began  to 
preach  in  Galilee  only  when  He  had  ended  for  the  time  His  work  in 
Tudsea,  and  this  was  after  the  im]irisonment  of  the  Baptist  and  the  at- 
tempt of  the  Jews  on  His  own  life  (John  v.  18). 

10 


218  THE   LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Pait  IV. 

From  Matthew's  words  (iv.  13):  "Leaving  Nazareth,  He 
came  and  dwelt  in  Capernaum,"  we  may  infer  that  up  to  this 
time  Nazareth  was  his  fixed  place  of  residence,  although  the  two 
miracles  —  the  change  of  water  into  wine  and  the  healing  of  the 
nobleman's  son  —  were  wrought  by  Him  being  at  Cana.  If  the 
words  are  taken  in  their  strict  sense,  we  may  say  that  leav- 
ing Jerusalem  after  the  unnamed  feast  He  went  first  to 
Nazareth,  where  He  taught  in  the  synagogue,  and  thence  to 
Capernaum.  Mark  says  only  in  general  terms  that  "  He  came 
into  Galilee."  Luke  (iv.  16,  31)  speaks  as  if  He  went  from 
Nazareth  to  Capernaum.  Are  we  to  assume  that  he  is  narrating 
chronologically,  and  that  the  Lord's  Galilaean  ministry.  His  first 
teaching  in  a  synagogue,  began  at  Nazareth  ?  This  may  be 
doubted.  We  find  in  this  Evangelist  (iv.  15,  IG)  a  brief  but 
comprehensive  statement  of  His  work  in  GaHlee,  that  His  fame 
went  abroad,  and  that  "  He  taught  in  their  synagogues,  being 
glorified  of  all."  Is  the  mention  of  His  teaching  at  Nazareth 
which  immediately  follows,  an  instance  illustrating  the  general 
character  of  His  ministry,  and  without  regard  to  the  time  when 
it  occurred  ?    (So  Keil,  and  many.) 

Before  we  answer  this  question,  we  must  ask  whether  the 
Lord  twice  visited  and  preached  in  Nazareth  ?  As  Matthew 
(xiii.  53-58)  and  Mark  (vi.  1-6)  both  speak  of  a  visit  of  Jesus  to 
Nazareth,  but  apparently  at  a  later  period,  it  is  a  question 
whether  this  visit  can  b.e  identified  with  that  mentioned  by  Luke 
(iv.  16-30),  or  whether  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  distinct.' 
There  are  several  points  of  likeness,  but  not  more  than  would 
naturally  exist  in  two  visits  made  under  such  peculiar  circum- 
stances. In  both.  His  words  excite  the  astonishment,  not  un- 
mixed with  envy,  of  His  fellow -townsmen;  and  recalling  to  mind 
His  origin  and  His  education  amongst  themselves,  and  His  fam- 
ily, whose  members  they  knew,  they  are  offended  at  His  pro- 
phetic claims.  In  both.  He  repeats  the  proverb,  so  strikingly 
applicable,  that  "  a  prophet  is  not  without  honor  save  in  his  own 
country;"  but  with  this  difference,  that  at  the  second  visit  He 


•  Opinions  of  .recent  inquirers  are  about  equally  divided.  In  favor  of  their  iden- 
tity are  Lange,  Alford,  Bucher,  Friedlieb,  Lichteiistein,  Farrar,  JJIeek,  Weiss;  against 
it,  Meyer,  Stier,  Robinson,  Tischendorf,  Wieseler,  Krafft,  To^Tisend,  Ellicott,  Keil  on 
Matt.  xiii.  54  flf.,  Godet;  and  hesitatingly,  Edersheim. 


Part  IV.]  JESUS   TEACHES   AT   NAZARETH.  219 

adds,  with  apparent  reference  to  His  brothers  and  sisters,  "  and 
among  his  own  kin  and  in  his  own  house."  On  the  other  hand, 
the  points  of  difference  are  more  numerous,  and  more  plainly 
marked.  In  the  former  visit,  He  is  alone,  in  the  latter,  He  is 
accompanied  by  His  disciples  (Mark  vi.  1).  In  the  former,  He 
is  attacked  by  the  enraged  populace,  and  escapes  through  super- 
natural aid  the  threatened  death;  in  the  latter,  though  He  mar- 
velled at  their  unbelief.  He  continued  there  for  a  time,  and  healed 
a  few  sick  folk.  In  the  former,  "  passing  through  the  midst  of 
them  He  went  His  way  and  came  to  Capernaum,  a  city  of  Gali- 
lee ";  in  the  latter,  He  "  went  round  about  the  villages  teaching." 
The  mention  of  the  healing  of  the  sick  by  Mark  clearly  shows 
the_yisits  to  have  been  distinct,  for  it  could  not  have  taken  place 
before^His  first  teaching  in  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath,  and 
immediately  afterward  He  was  obliged  to  flee  from  their  rage. 
But  if  we  find  two  distinct  visits  to  Nazareth,  this  does  not 
show  that  this  in  Luke  was  before  He  went  to  Capernaum,  and 
the  first  instance  of  His  teaching  in  a  synagogue.  This  will  de- 
pend upon  the  meaning  of  Luke's  words  (iv.  16),  "And  as  His 
custom  was.  He  went  into  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath  day, 
and  stood  up  for  to  read."  Was  it  His  custom,  while  yet  living 
at  Nazareth  and  before  His  ministry  began,  not  only  to  attend 
the  service  but  to  take  part  in  it  ?  There  were  two  parts  of  the 
service  in  which  He  may  have  assisted  —  the  offering  of  the 
prayers;  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  first  the  Law,  then  the 
Prophets;  and  the  exposition  or  sermon  following,  if  any  was 
made.  But  those  who  took  part  were  asked  to  do  so  by  the  presi- 
dent or  superintendent  of  the  service,  and  none  did  so  but  those 
thus  asked.  (As  to  the  mode  of  conducting  the  service,  see  Eders., 
i.  439  ff.)  Whether  the  Lord  may  not,  as  a  private  man,  have 
offered  the  prayers  and  read  the  Scriptures,  we  cannot  say,  but 
that  He  had  never  preached,  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  verse 
22  :  "  They  wondered  at  the  gracious  words  which  proceeded 
out  of  His  mouth."  It  certainly  had  not  been  His  custom  to 
expound  the  Scriptures  or  preach  at  Nazareth  ;  and  that  He  was 
now  called  up  to  read  and  expound,  was  doubtless  owing  to  the 
reputation  He  had  already  acquired  as  a  teacher  (John  iii.  2  ; 
Eders.,  i.  445). 


220  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

It  seems,  therefore,  better  to  confine  "  as  His  custom  was  " 
either  to  His  attendance  on  the  synagogue  service,  or  to  inter- 
pret it  by  the  general  statement  in  the  verse  preceding:  "  And 
He  taught  in  their  synagogues,"  i.  e.,  He  did  at  Nazareth  only 
what  He  was  accustomed  to  do  elsewhere.     (So  Bleek  in  loco.) 

If  we  accept  this  visit  at  Nazareth  as  before  His  settlement 
at  Capernaum,  how  are  the  words,  verse  23,  to  be  understood, 
"  Whatsoever  we  have  heard  done  in  Capernaum,  do  here  also 
in  thy  country "  ?  This  implies  that  He  had  already  wrought 
miracles  in  Capernaum.  Some  (as  Ebrard  and  Edersheim)  ex- 
plain this  by  saying  that  this  may  refer  to  the  healing  of  the  noble- 
man's son,  which  took  place  at  Capernaum,  though  Jesus  Him- 
self was  at  Cana;  others  (as  Godet),  that  He  wrought  some  mira- 
cles when  earlier  at  Capernaum  (John  ii.  12)  though  they  are  not 
mentioned  ;  and  others  still,  that  He  may  have  gone  to  Nazareth 
at  this  time  by  way  of  Capernaum,  and  wrought  some  miracles 
on  the  way.  It  mv;st  be  admitted  that  these  explanations  are 
not  wholly  satisfactory;  and  the  natural  inference  is,  that  this 
visit  at  Nazareth  was,  if  distinct  from  and  earlier  than  that  in 
Matthew  and  Mark,  still  after  the  beginning  of  His  labors  in 
Capernaum. 

A  chronological  datum  has  been  found  by  Bengel  in  the  fact 
that  the  passage  of  Isaiah  read  by  the  Lord  (Luke  iv.  18,  19) 
was  that  appointed  to  be  read  on  the  morning  of  the  great  day 
of  Atonement.'  But  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  such  was 
the  order  at  this  time  ;  nor  does  it  appear  whether  Jesus  read 
the  passage  appointed  for  the  day,  or  that  to  which  He  opened 
intentionally  or  under  divine  direction.  Some  of  the  fathers, 
from  verse  19,  where  mention  is  made  of  "  the  acceptable  year 
of  the  Lord,"  inferred  that  His  ministry  continued  but  a  single 
year."  That  no  definite  period  of  time  is  meant,  sufficiently 
appears,  however,  from  the  context  (Is.  Ixi.  2). 

The  city  of  Nazareth,  being  built  upon  the  side  of  a  steep 
hill,  presents  several  precipices  down  which  a  person  might  be 


1  See  also  McKnight,  Har.  in  loco.  Edersheim,  i.  444,  objects  that  the  modern 
Lectionary  readings  from  the  prophets  are  not  the  same  as  in  the  time  of  Christ;  and 
that  in  the  modern  lectionary  this  part  of  Isaiah  is  not  read  at  all. 

*  See  Wieseler,  Syn.,  272,  who  makes  an  interval  of  a  year  from  this  Sabbath  to 
His  death. 


Fart  IV^]  JESUS   REJECTED   AT   NAZARETH.  221 

cast.  It  is  said  that  the  ancient  city  stood  higher  on  the  slope 
than  the  modern.  That  which  has  for  many  years  been  pointed 
out  as  the  place  where  the  attempt  was  made  on  the  Lord's  life, 
and  called  the  Mount  of  Precipitation,  lies  some  two  miles  from 
the  village.  It  is  a  conspicuous  object  from  the  plain  of  Esdraelon, 
which  it  overlooks.  Its  distance  from  the  village  is  a  suflBcient 
proof  that  it  cannot  have  been  the  real  scene  of  the  event.  The 
cliff  which  travellers  have  generally  fixed  upon  as  best  answer- 
ing to  the  narrative,  lies  just  back  of  the  Maronite  church,  and 
is  some  thirty  or  forty  feet  in  height.* 

The  wrath  of  the  people,  so  unprovoked,  and  their  effort  to 
kill  Him,  seem  sufBciently  to  justify  the  opinion  of  Nathanael  in 
regard  to  Nazareth.  From  this  incident  it  is  plain  that  they 
were  fierce  and  cruel,  and  ready  from  mere  envy  to  imbrue  their 
hands  in  the  blood  of  one  who  had  lived  among  them,  a  neighbor 
and  a  friend,  all  His  life.  It  is  not  improbable,  however,  that 
they  may  long  have  been  conscious  that,  though  dwelling  among 
them.  He  was  not  of  them,  and  thus  a  secret  feeling  of  dislike 
and  ill-will  may  have  been  slumbering  in  their  hearts.  This  is 
the  only  instance  recorded  of  the  Lord's  reading  in  a  synagogue. 
Elsewhere  it  is  said  that  He  preached  in  the  synagogues,  per- 
mission being  everywhere  given  Him,  apparently  in  virtue  of 
His  prophetic  claims.     (Compare  Acts  xiii.  15.) 

Thus  rejected  at  Nazareth,  Jesus  departs  to  Capernaum. 
The  natural  interest  which  all  feel  in  a  place  which  was  so  long 
the  Lord's  residence  and  the  central  point  of  His  labors,  leads  us 
to  inquire  with  some  minuteness  as  to  its  site.  As  Bethsaida 
and  Chorazin  were  adjacent  cities,  joined  with  Capernaum  in  the 
same  high  privileges,  and  falling  under  the  same  condemnation 
(Matt.  xi.  21;  Luke  x.  13),  and  their  sites  are  subjects  of  dis- 
pute, we  shall  embrace  them  in  this  topographical  inquiry  ;  and 
we  begin  with  some  account  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee  upon  whose 
shores  they  stood. 

The  sea  of  Galilee  is  formed  by  the  waters  of  the  Jordan,  which 


1  Robinson,  ii.  285;  Ritter,  Theil,  xvi.  744.  Van  der  Velde,  Joumcy,  ii.  385,  thinks 
that  this  cannot  be  the  place,  and  supposes  tliat  the  precipice  where  the  Saviour's  life 
was  threatened,  has  crumbled  away  from  the  effect  of  earthquakes  and  other  causes. 
Conder,  TenI  Life.  i.  140,  suggests  that  the  brow  of  the  hill  may  now  be  hidden  under 
one  of  the  houses, 


222  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

enter  at  the  uorthern  end  and  flow  out  at  the  southern.  Its  shape  is 
that  of  an  irregular  oval,  or  pear-shaped,  somewhat  broader  at  the 
upper  part,  it  is  twelve  and  a  quarter  miles  in  length,  its  greatest 
breadth  six  and  three-quarters;  its  lowest  depth  106  feet.  The 
water  is  clear  and  sweet,  and  is  used  for  drinking  by  the  inhabitants 
along  its  shore,  many  of  whom  ascribe  to  it  medicinal  qualities.  It 
is  650  feet  lower  than  the  Mediterranean,  and  was  once  thought  to  fill 
the  crater  of  an  extinct  volcano,  and  there  are  now  hot  springs  on  its 
western  shore;  but  Col.  Wilson  (B.  E.,  iii.  170)  says  that  there  does 
not  appear  to  be  anything  volcanic  in  its  origin.  The  west  shore  ot 
the  lake  is  more  precipitous,  except  at  one  or  two  points,  than  that 
of  the  east.  Lying  so  low  and  surrounded  with  hills,  those  on  the 
east  nearly  2,000  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea,  and  seamed  with 
deep  ravines  down  which  the  winds  sweep  with  great  violence,  it  is 
very  much  exposed  to  sudden  furious  storms.  (Stanley,  361;  Rob., 
ii.  426.)  McGregor  (Rob  Roy.  508)  says:  "  On  the  sea  of  Galilee  the 
wind  has  a  singular  force  and  suddenness,  and  this  is  no  doubt  be- 
cause the  sea  is  so  deep  in  the  world  that  the  sun  rarefies  the  air 
in  it  enormously,  and  the  wind  speeding  swift  along  a  level  plateau, 
till  suddenly  it  meets  the  huge  gap  in  the  way,  and  tumbles  down 
here  irresistible."  The  sea  swarms  with  fish,  and  its  waters  in  the 
Lord's  day  were  covered  with  boats.  At  that  time  its  shores  were 
densely  peopled,  nine  cities  being  mentioned  and  many  villages; 
now  are  found  only  the  city  of  Tiberias  and  a  collection  of  hovels  at 
Magdala. 

Nearly  midway  on  the  west  side  of  the  lake  is  "the  laud  of 
Gennesaret"  (Matt.  xiv.  34;  Mark  vi.  53;  Jos.,  War,  iii.  10.  8).  It 
is  made  by  a  recession  of  the  hills  from  the  shore,  and  forms  a  seg- 
ment of  a  circle,  a  crescent  shape,  being,  according  to  Col.  Wilson 
(Recov.  Jer.,  264),  two  and  a  half  miles  long,  and  one  mile  broad. 
It  begins  on  the  south  just  above  the  village  Mejdel  or  Magdala,  and 
extends  northward  to  the  point  where  the  promontory  of  Khan  Min- 
yeh  comes  down  to  the  water.  "The  plain  is  almost  a  paralellogram, 
shut  in  on  the  north  and  south  sides  by  steep  cliffs  nearly  a  thousand 
feet  high.  On  the  west  the  hills  recede  not  quite  so  precii)itously. 
The  shore  line  is  gently  embayed,  and  the  beach  is  pearly  white,  one 
mass  of  triturated  fresh  water  shells,  and  edged  by  a  fringe  of  the  ex- 
quisitely lovely  oleander."  (Tristram,  B.  P.,  273.)  It  is  well 
watered,  two  fountains  arising  in  it  large  and  copious,  and  several 
permanent  streams  flow  from  the  hills  west  and  north,  whose  waters 
were  carried  right  and  left  by  aqueducts  to  irrigate  the  plain.  (Rob., 
ii.'402;  Baedeker,  370.) 


^a2L 


NORTHWEflTERN   COAST    OF    THE    SeA    OF    GaLILEE,    WITH    THE    PlAIN    OF   GeNNESARBT 

AND  THE  Towns  lting  in  it  and  near  it. 


(893) 


^^0roF  p»/^i 


SEP  26- 


Ar,. 


224  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

In  or  near  the  land  of  Gennesaret  was  the  city  of  Capernaum.  Its 
site  has  been  long  the  subject  of  dispute.  Neither  the  statements 
of  the  Evangelists,  nor  of  Josephus,  nor  of  the  early  fathers  and 
travellers,  are  so  definite  that  we  can  determine  from  them  the  exact 
spot;  and  even  now  moder  ntravellers  and  Palestinian  explorers  who 
have  carefully  examined  all  possible  sites  along  the  lake,  are  by  no 
means  agreed  in  their  conclusions.  All,  therefore,  that  we  can  now 
do,  is  to  give  a  summary  of  the  question  as  it  stands  in  the  light  of 
the  most  recent  investigations. 

It  is  known  from  the  gospels  (Matt.  iv.  13;  ix.  1;  xiii.  1;  Mark 
ii.  13;  John  vi.  17)  that  Capernaum  was  built  on  the  sea  shore,  and 
it  appears  from  a  comparison  of  John  vi.  17  with  Matt.  xiv.  34  and 
Mark  vi.  53  that  it  was  either  in  or  near  "the  land  of  Gennesaret." 
As  to  its  position  we  have  more  distinct  information  incidentally 
given  us  by  Josephus,  who,  speaking  of  the  plain  of  Gennesaret, 
says:  "It  is  irrigated  by  a  highly  fertile  spring  called  Capharnaum 
by  the  people  of  the  country."  (War,  iii.  10.  8.)  Elsewhere  (Life, 
72)  he  speaks  of  a  village  on  the  lake  called  Cepharnome  to  which 
he,  having  been  wounded  in  a  skirmish,  was  taken.  We  can  scarcely 
doubt  that  the  fountain  he  speaks  of  as  called  Capharnaum,  took 
its  name  from  the  city,  and  that  the  two  were  not  far  from  each 
other.  Can  this  spring  be  identified  with  either  of  those  now  water- 
ing the  plain? 

Josephus  mentions  as  a  peculiarity  of  the  spring  of  Capernaum 
that  "it  was  thought  by  some  to  be  a  vein  of  the  Nile  from  its 
producing  a  fish  similar  to  the  coracin  of  the  lake  of  Alexandria." 
Are  such  fish  now  found  in  any  fountain  of  Gennesaret  ?  The 
southernmost  fountain  lying  near  the  western  range  of  hills, 
is  the  Round  Fountain  —  Ain  Mudawarah  —  which  is  described  by 
Robinson  as  forming  "  an  oval  reservoir  more  than  50  feet  in  diameter; 
the  water  is  perhaps  two  feet  deep,  beautifully  limpid  and  sweet, 
bubbling  up  and  flowing  out  rapidly  in  a  large  stream  to  water  the 
plain  below."  Here  Tristram  (Land  of  Israel,  46),  found  the  coracin 
or  cat-fish,  and  was  therefore  inclined  to  regard  it  as  the  fountain 
of  Capernaum,  but  he  afterwards  found  the  same  fish  in  the  lake. 
Fishermen  of  the  coast  told  McGregor  (Rob  Roy,  859)  that  this  fish 
is  found  in  summer  time  in  other  fountains,  and  is  always  to  be  found 
in  the  lake;  and  afterward  he  saw  one  in  the  hot  spring  of  Tabigah. 
The  presence  of  the  coracin,  therefore,  in  a  fountain  ceases  to  be 
any  certain  proof  that  it  is  the  fountain  mentioned  by  Josephus. 

Assuming  that  the  fountain  was  near  the  city,  we  must  further 
inquire  as  to  the  existence  of  any  ruins  in  its  neighborhood.     Robin- 


Part  IV.]  SITE   OF  CAPERNAUM.  325 

SOD,  who  searclied  for  them  at  the  Rouud  Fountain,  says  :  "There 
was  nothing  that  would  indicate  tliat  any  town  or  village  had  ever 
occupied  the  spot."  And  Col.  Wilson  says  (B.  E.,  iii.  281):  "No 
ruins  of  any  consequence  have  been  discovered  in  this  neighborhood"; 
and  with  them  Dr.  Thomson  agrees.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
claims  of  the  Round  Fountain  to  be  the  fountain  of  Capernaum  are 
strenuoi^sly  defended  by  DeSaulcy  (ii.  423),  who  asserts  that  he  found 
distinct  traces  of  the  ruins  of  a  city  upon  the  adjacent  hills.  McGre- 
gor says,  that  "various  ruins  are  found  not  far  from  the  fountain, 
though  not  distinct."  The  absence  of  ruins,  though  admitted  by 
Caspari,  proves  to  his  mind  nothing  against  the  former  existence  of  a 
city  there,  as  it  might  have  been  destroyed  by  an  earthquake.  (Matt, 
xi.  23.) 

Dismissing,  then,  the  claim  of  the  Round  Fountain,  because  of  the 
absence  of  any  ruins  in  its  neighborhood,  and  because  to-day  it  has 
very  few  advocates,  we  proceed  to  the  next  fountain  in  the  plain, 
which  some  regard  as  the  fountain  of  Capernaum.  This  is  called  Ain 
et-Tin  —  the  fountain  of  the  fig-tree  —  and  rises  near  Khan  Minyeh 
at  the  northwestern  extremity  of  the  plain,  where  the  western  hills 
approach  the  lake  shore.  Robinson  (ii.  403)  thus  describes  it: 
"Between  the  Khan  and  the  shore  a  large  fountain  gushes  out  from 
beneath  the  rocks,  and  forms  a  brook  flowing  into  the  lake  a  few 
rods  distant.  Near  by  are  several  other  springs.  Our  guide  said 
these  springs  were  brackish.  .  .  .  Along  the  lake  is  a  tract  of 
hixuriant  lierbage  occasioned  by  the  spring."  McGregor  (Rob  Roy, 
355)  speaks  of  it  as  a  perennial  fountain,  pouring  out  from  the  rock 
about  eight  feet  higher  than  the  lake.  The  water  descends  into  a 
long  marshy  lagoon,  into  which  he  paddled  his  canoe  from  the  lake, 
and  searched  for  some  trace  of  a  building,  but  found  none.  The 
water  is  strongly  brackish,  and  is  not  used  by  the  inmates  of  the 
Khan  near  by. 

That  this  fountain  cannot  be  that  mentioned  by  Josephus  is  plain 
from  the  fact  that  it  could  not  irrigate  the  plain.  "  Most  of  the  land  of 
Gennesaret,"  says  McGregor,  "is  above  the  level  of  the  fountain 
head."  Robinson  says:  "The  lake,  when  full,  sets  up  nearly  or 
quite  to  the  fountain";  and  Tliomson,  that  "  it  comes  out  close  to 
the  lake  and  on  a  level  with  Us  surface."  It  is  impossible,  therefore, 
that  it  could  ever  have  had  any  value  for  purposes  of  irrigation. 
Nor  are  there  any  ruins  of  importance  yet  discovered  near  this 
fountain  such  as  would  naturally  mark  the  site  of  a  city  like  Caper- 
naum. They  are  thus  spoken  of  by  Robinson  when  he  first  saw  them : 
"A  few  rods  south  of  the  Khan  and  fountain  is  a  low  mound  or  swel', 

10* 


236  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV". 

with  ruins  occupying  a  considerable  circumference.  The  few  remains 
seem  to  be  mostly  dwellings  of  no  very  remote  date,  but  there  was 
not  enough  to  make  out  anything  with  certainty."  Uiion  his  second 
journey  the  ruins  appeared  to  him  more  extensive.  "The  remains 
are  strewed  around  in  shapeless  heaps,  but  are  much  more  consider- 
able and  extensive  than  my  former  impressions  had  led  me  to  sup- 
pose. Indeed,  there  are  here  remains  enough,  not  only  to  warrant, 
but  to  require  the  hypothesis  of  a  large  ancient  place  "  (ii.  345). 
Thomson  (i.  545),  on  the  contrary,  speaks  of  the  ruins  as  "  not  ade- 
quate to  answer  the  demands  of  history.  No  one  would  think  of 
them,  if  he  had  not  a  theory  to  maintain  which  required  them  to  repre- 
sent Capernaum."  Bonar  also  affirms,  "that  no  large  town  surely 
stood  here,  else  it  would  have  left  some  traces  of  itself."  The  later 
explorers  speak  in  the  same  way.  Col.  Wilson  (Recov.  Jer.,  273) 
says  of  the  ruins  described  by  Robinson:  "They  form  a  series  of 
mounds  covering  an  extent  of  ground  small  in  comparison  with  either 
those  of  Tell  Hum  or  Korazeh,"  nor  do  they  contain  the  ruins  of  any 
important  building.  As  no  fragments  of  columns,  capitals,  or  carved 
stones  were  found,  he  concludes  that  the  ruins  are  of  modern  date. 
And  the  ruins  on  the  hill  above  Khan  Minyeh  where  some  place  Caper- 
naum, he  regards  as  unimportant. 

These  differing,  and  somewhat  conflicting,  statements  show,  at 
least,  that  whatever  may  have  been  the  cause,  whether  by  the  trans- 
portation of  the  hewn  stones  to  Tiberias  or  elsewhere,  as  said  by 
Robinson,  or  as  the  more  direct  result  of  a  divine  judgment  through 
some  physical  catastrophe,  almost  all  traces  of  Capernaum,  if  it  stood 
here,  have  disappeared. 

If,  then,  neither  the  Round  Fountain,  nor  Ain  et-Tin,  answers 
to  that  described  by  Josephus,  and  if  they  are  the  only  fountains 
lying  in  the  plain,  we  must  seek  this  fountain  without  the  plain, 
and  yet  so  near  it  that  it  might  be  irrigated  by  it;  and  such  a 
one  may  be  found  at  et-Tabigah,  some  three-quarters  of  a  mile  or  a 
mile  north  of  Khan  Minyeh.  Here  are  several  hot  springs,  issuing 
from  a  limestone  rock  some  thirty  or  forty  feet  above  the  plain ;  one 
is  much  larger  than  the  rest,  and  is  said  1)y  Col.  Wilson  to  be  by  far 
the  largest  spring  in  Galilee.  It  rises  in  an  octagonal  reservoir  of 
stone,  originally  some  twenty  feet  high,  but  now  the  wall  is  broken, 
and  the  water  is  only  about  ten  feet  in  depth.  For  what  purpose  was 
this  reservoir?  Not  apparently  to  gain  power  to  turn  mills,  but  to 
supply  water  to  irrigate  the  plain  of  Gennesaret;  and  this  could 
be  done  only  through  an  aqueduct.  Are  there  now  any  traces  of 
one?     In  going  northward  along  the  shore  from  Khan  Minyeh  toward 


Part  IV.]  SITE  OF  CAPERNAUM.  227 

the  bay  of  et-Tabigah,  says  Robinson  (iii.  345),  "  we  struck  upon  the 
rocky  and  precii^itous  point  of  the  hill  above  the  fountain,  toward 
the  northeast.  There  is  no  passage  along  its  base,  which  is  washed 
by  waters  of  the  lake.  A  path  has  been  cut  in  ancient  times  along 
the  rock  some  twenty  feet  above  the  water,  and  we  found  no  difficulty 
in  passing.  One  feature  of  the  excavation  surprised  us,  namely,  that 
for  most  the  way  there  is  a  channel  cut  in  the  rock,  about  three  feet 
deep  and  as  many  wide,  which  seemed  evidently  to  have  been  an 
aqueduct  once  conveying  water  for  irrigating  the  northern  part  of 
the  plain  El-Ghuweir  (Gennesaret).  There  was  no  mistaking  the  na- 
ture and  object  of  this  channel ;  and  yet  no  waters  were  near  which 
could  be  thus  conveyed  except  from  the  fountains  of  et-Tabigah. 
Tha  fountains  issue  from  under  the  hill,  just  back  of  the  village. 
We  went  thither,  and  found  built  up  solidly  around  the  main 
fountain  an  octagonal  Roman  reservoir,  now  in  ruins.  Like  those  at 
Ras  el-Ain,  near  Tyre,  it  was  obviously  built  in  order  to  raise  the  water 
to  a  certain  height  for  an  aipieduct.  The  head  of  water  was  sufficient 
to  carry  it  to  the  channel  around  the  point  of  the  opposite  hill  into  the 
plain  El-Ghuweir;  but  whether  this  was  done  by  a  canal  around  the 
sides  of  the  valley,  or  whether  even  it  was  done  at  all,  there  are  now  no 
further  traces  from  which  to  form  a  judgment.  The  water  has  a 
saltish  taste,  but  is  not  unpalatable."  Porter  (ii.  429)  gives  substan- 
tially the  same  description. 

Almost  all  later  travellers  and  explorers  have  spoken  in  a  like 
way.  Col.  Wilson  (Recov.  Jer.,  272)  says:  "Connected  with  this 
fountain  are  the  remains  of  some  remarkable  works,  which  at  one 
time  raised  its  waters  to  a  higher  level,  and  conveyed  them  bodily 
into  the  plain  of  Gennesaret  for  the  purposes  of  irrigation.  After 
leaving  the  reservoir,  the  aqueduct  can  be  traced  at  intervals,  follow- 
ing the  contour  of  the  ground,  to  the  point  where  it  crossed  the  beds 
of  two  water  courses  on  arches,  the  piers  of  which  may  still  be  seen ; 
it  then  turns  down  towards  the  lake,  and  runs  along  the  hillside  on 
the  top  of  a  massive  retaining  w^all,  of  which  fifty  or  sixty  y'^rds  re- 
main ;  and  lastly  passes  round  the  Khan  Minyeh  cliff  by  a  remarkable 
excavation  in  the  solid  rock,  which  has  been  noticed  by  all  travellers. 
The  elevation  of  the  aqueduct  at  this  point  is  sufficient  to  have  en- 
abled the  water  brought  by  it  to  irrigate  the  whole  plain  of  Gennes- 
aret." McGregor  (Rob  Roy,  360)  confirms  Col.  Wilson.  "We 
easily  trace  the  ancient  remains  cf  the  ancient  aqueduct  all  the  way 
to  the  rocky  cliff.  .  .  .  Then  we  ride  up  the  cliff  and  find  the 
level  waterw^ay  has  come  there  too.  .  .  .  The  channel  is  cut 
round  the  rocky  slope,  and  we  go  inside  the  old  dry  aqueduct,  long 


228  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD,  [Part  IV. 

used  as  a  ridiug  path,  but  now  plainly  seen  to  be  a  way  for  water  by 
its  section  like  an  inverted  horseshoe ;  the  very  least  convenient  form 
for  a  road  and  the  very  best  for  a  channel."  (Of  this  rocky  cut  a 
photograph  may  be  found  in  Dr.  Thomson's  Central  Palestine.) 

To  the  general  assent  of  travellers  that  this  cut  was  for  a  water- 
way, Captain  Conder  takes  exception.  He  says  (Qt.  St.,  1882,  222): 
"The  total  length  of  the  rock-cut  passage  is  150  yards,  the  width 
from  four  to  six  feet,  but  generally  not  more  than  from  three  to  six 
feet  on  the  lower  side.  Between  this  spring  and  the  passage  there 
are  no  traces  of  any  aqueduct,  nor  any  indication  of  any  wall  on  piers. 
The  level  of  the  passage  appears  to  be  higher  than  the  top  of  the 
reservoir."  His  conclusion  is,  that -'the  spring  and  rock-cut  chan- 
nel have  no  connection  with  one  another.  It  seems  far  more  prob- 
able that  the  passage  was  intended  for  a  road  in  order  to  avoid  the 
necessity  of  climbing  over  the  promontory." 

If  future  examinations  shall  sustain  the  positions  of  Conder,  the 
spring  at  et-Tabigah  cannot  be  that  mentioned  bj'  Josephus  as  water- 
ing the  plain  of  Geunesaret.  But  at  present  we  must  accept  the  gen- 
eral statement  of  travellers,  that  the  channel  in  the  rock  was  for  an 
aqueduct,  and  was  connected  with  the  spring  at  et-Tabigah.  We 
have  then  a  spring,  not  itself  in  the  plain,  and  yet  capable  of  irrigat- 
ing it,  and  apparently  once  used  for  that  purpose;  and  so  far  answer- 
ing to  the  description  of  Josephus. 

But  two  other  questions  here  arise :  First,  Has  this  spring  in  it 
the  coracin  or  cat-fish  of  which  Josephus  speaks?  This  fish,  it  is 
admitted,  is  found  in  the  lake,  and  may  easily  ascend  to  the  neigh- 
boring fountains,  and,  according  to  McGregor,  is  found  not  only  in 
the  Round  Fountain,  and  at  Ain  et-Tin,  but  here  also  at  et-Tabigah. 
Second,  If  this  be  the  fountain  at  Capernaum,  where  was  the  city? 
Are  there  any  ruins  near?  It  is  admitted  that  in  its  immediate  vicin- 
ity are  no  ruins  of  importance ;  apparently  no  city  stood  near  it.  The 
nearest  places,  which,  by  their  ruins,  show  that  they  were  large  vil- 
lages or  cities,  are  Khan  Minyeh  on  the  south,  a  mile  distant,  and  Tell 
Hum  on  the  northwest,  two  or  two  and  a  half  miles  distant.  Between 
these  we  must  choose.  The  argument  in  favor  of  Khan  Minyeh  is, 
that  it  is  nearer  the  fountain,  and  directly  connected  with  the  aque- 
duct already  mentioned.  In  favor  of  Tell  Hum  are  the  greater  extent 
of  the  ruins,  indicating  a  larger  city,  and  their  greater  antiquity. 
These  are  found  on  "a  little  low  promoutory  running  out  into  the 
lake,"  about  two  and  a  half  miles  from  where;  the  Jordan  enters  it. 
Here,  says  Robinson  (ii.  246),  are  the  remains  of  a  place  of  consider- 
able extent,  covering  a  tract  of  at  least  half  a  mile  along  the  shore, 
and   about  half  that  breadth,  inland.     They  consist  chiefiy   of  the 


Part  IV.]  SITE   OF   CAPERNAUM.  229 

fallen  walls  of  dwellings  and  other  buildings,  all  of  unhewn  stone, 
except  two  ruins.  Thomson  speaks  of  them  as  "  much  more  exten- 
sive and  striking  than  those  of  any  other  ancient  city  on  this  part  of 
the  lake."  But  the  recent  explorations  of  the  Palestinian  Fund 
Society  have  given  us  more  definite  information.  Col.  Wilson  (Recov. 
Jer.,  369)  says:  "  The  whole  area,  half  a  mile  in  length  and  a  quarter 
in  breadth,  was  thickly  covered  with  the  ruined  walls  of  private 
houses."  The  foundations  of  a  large  building  were  found,  wliich  is 
supposed  to  have  been  a  Jewish  synagogue,  and  of  which  he  says : 
"  Built  entirely  of  white  limestone,  it  must  once  have  been  a  conspic- 
uous object  standing  out  from  the  dark  basaltic  background." 
There  are  also  the  remains  of  a  later  building,  probably  those  of  a 
church,  perhaps  that  built  about  600  A.  D.,  and  enclosing  the  sup- 
posed house  of  St.  Peter.     Two  remarkable  tombs  were  also  found. 

Between  these  two  claimants  to  be  Capernaum,  the  position  of  the 
fountain  at  et-Tabigah,  admitting  it  to  be  the  fountain  of  Capernaum, 
does  not  enable  us  to  decide.  If  the  fountain  and  the  city  were  near 
each  other,  Khan  Minyeh  has  the  preference.  But  some  affirm  that 
the  fountain  might  have  been  quite  remote  from  the  city.  It  is, 
doubtless,  generally  true  that  among  the  brookless  hills  the  site  of  a 
fountain  determines  the  site  of  a  village,  as  at  Nazareth;  but  the  same 
necessity  would  not  exist  in  the  case  of  villages  built  along  the  lake, 
and  thus  amply  supplied  with  w^ater  for  domestic  uses.  Here,  the 
position  of  a  village  would  naturally  be  governed  by  other  consider- 
ations. We  are  not,  then,  to  think  it  necessary  that  a  city  on  the  lake 
should  be  close  to  a  fountain,  as  said  by  Dr.  Robinson  {contra  Dr. 
Thomson,  Van  der  Velde).  If  the  latter  were  in  its  territory,  and 
used  by  its  citizens  for  irrigation,  or  for  mills,  or  other  purposes, 
both  would  naturally  be  called  by  the  same  name.  The  existence  of 
Tell  Hum  itself  away  from  any  fountain  is  its  own  proof. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  quantity  of  water  at  et-Tabigah  is  very 
abundant,  but  it  is  slightly  brackish  and  is  not  drunk,  so  that  its  dis- 
tance from  the  city  was  in  this  respect  of  no  importance.  Its  chief 
value  was  to  drive  mills,  one  of  which  is  still  in  use.  Thomson 
thinks  et-Tabigah  may  have  been  "the  great  manufacturing  suburb 
of  Capernaum,"  where  were  clustered  together  the  mills,  j^otteries, 
and  tanneries,  and  other  operations  of  this  sort,  the  traces  of  which 
are  still  to  be  seen.  "I  even  derive  this  name  Tabiga  from  this  busi- 
ness of  tanning."  If  Tabigah  were  thus  a  suburb  of  Capernaum,  we 
should  naturally  expect  to  find  remains  of  former  habitations  scattered 
along  between  them.  Thomson  states  that  "  traces  of  old  buildings 
extend  all  the  way  along  the  sliore  from  Tabiga  to  Tell  Hum,"  tlms 


230  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD,  [Part  IV. 

connecting  them  together  as  city  and  suburb.  Robinson,  on  the  othei 
hand,  speaks  of  "  other  fountains  and  a  town  "  as  lying  between.  In 
this  we  have  Thomson's  personal  assurance  that  he  is  in  error.  So 
far,  then,  as  regards  "the  fertilizing  spring"  of  Josephus,  we  must 
l)l:vce  it  at  et-Tabigah,  and  the  probabilities  are  that  it  was  in  the 
territory  of  Tell  Hum,  not  in  that  of  Khan  Minyeh. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  second  topographical  datum  given  by 
Josephus.  He  tells  us  (Life,  72),  that  being  bruised  by  a  fall  from 
his  horse  in  a  skirmish  near  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan,  he  was  carried 
to  a  village  called  Cepharnome.  Here  he  remained  during  the  day, 
but  was  removed  that  night  by  medical  direction  to  Taricheae,  at  the 
south  side  of  the  lake.  From  this  it  is  inferred  that  Capernaum  was 
the  first  town  of  any  importance  along  the  shore  from  the  mouth  of 
the  Jordan  southward,  since  the  soldiers  would  not  have  carried  a 
wounded  man  any  further  than  was  necessary.  Hence,  Tell  Hum,  as 
several  miles  nearer  the  place  of  the  skirmish,  is  more  likely  to  have 
been  Capernaum  than  Khan  Minyeh,  (Stanley,  376,  note;  Wilson, 
B.  E.,  11.  139.)  This  Is  very  probable,  but  as  we  know  not  whether 
special  reasons  may  not  have  led  Josephus  to  prefer  Capernaum  to 
any  other  city  on  that  shore,  irrespective  of  distance,  the  argument  is 
not  at  all  decisive. 

We  have  now  to  consider  the  statements  of  the  Gospels,  which 
seem  to  place  Capernaum  in  the  plain  of  Geunesaret,  and,  If  so,  would 
exclude  Tell  Hum  (Rob.  ill.  349  and  353) ;  and  since  these  demand 
some  previous  examination  as  to  the  site  of  Bcthsalda,  we  must  in- 
quire here  as  to  this  place,  and  our  knowledge  of  it. 

Let  us  first  sum  up  all  that  we  know  from  other  sources  respecting 
Bethsaida.  In  Josephus '  we  find  mention  made  of  a  village  of  this 
name.  "Philip  the  Tetrarch  also  advanced  the  village  Bethsaida, 
situate  at  the  lake  of  Gennesaret,  unto  the  dignity  of  a  city,  both  by 
the  number  of  Inhabitants  it  contained,  and  its  other  grandeur,  and 
called  It  by  the  name  of  Julias,  the  same  name  with  Ctvsar's  daugh- 
ter." Elsewhere  he  states  that  it  was  "in  the  lower  Gaulanitis""  and 
In  describing  the  course  of  the  Jordan,  he  says'  that  It  "divided  the 
'^larshes  and  fens  of  the  lake  Semechonitis;  when  it  hath  run  another 
hundred  and  twenty  furlongs,  it  first  passes  by  the  city  Julias,  and 
then  passes  through  the  middle  of  the  lake  Gennesaret."  Thus 
Josephus  places  Bethsaida  at  or  near  the  entrance  of  the  Jordan  into 
the  sea  of  Galilee.  It  Is  placed,  also,  by  Pliny,  upon  the  east  side  of 
the  Jordan,  and  by  St.  Jerome  upon  the  shore  of  Gennesaret. 
There  is  not  in  Josephus,  nor  in  any  of  the  early  fathci-s,  any  men. 
tion  of  another  Bethsaida. 


1  Antiq.,  srvdii.  2.  1.  2  War,  ii.  9. 1.  ^  -Wur,  iii.  10.  7. 


Part  IV,]  SITE   OF  BETHSAIDA.  231 

If,  then,  there  was  iu  the  Lord's  day  a  well-known  Bethsaida  on 
the  northeast  side  of  the  lake,  not  far  from  the  entrance  of  the  Jor- 
dan, can  its  site  now  be  found?  Robinson  places  it  on  a  hill  —  et- 
Tell  —  two  or  three  miles  above  the  entrance  of  the  Jordan  on  the  east 
side,  but  some  distance  from  its  banks  (ii.  413).  "  The  ruins  cover  a 
large  portion  of  it,  and  are  quite  extensive,  but,  so  far  as  we  could 
observe,  consist  entirely  of  unhewn  volcanic  stones,  without  any  dis- 
tinct trace  of  ancient  architecture." 

It  is  said  by  Wilson :  ' '  Et-Tell  has  been  identified  with  Bethsaida 
Julias  .  .  .  but  there  is  no  trace  of  that  magnificence  with 
which,  according  to  Josephus,  Julias  was  built."  Socin  (Baedeker) 
says:  "  The  ruins  consist  only  of  a  few  ancient  fragments."  Thus  it 
appears  that,  if  Bethsaida  was  at  et-Tell,  almost  all  traces  of  it  have 
disappeared.  But  there  are  some  who  do  not  put  it  at  et-Tell. 
Thomson,  with  whom  Wilson  and  others  agree,  objects  that  the  hill 
is  too  far  from  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan,  and  that  as  Bethsaida  — 
"house  of  fish"  —  derived  its  name  from  its  fisheries,  it  must  have 
been  located  on  the  shore.  Thomson  is  therefore  inclined  to  put  it  at 
the  mouth,  and  suggests  that  the  town  would  naturally  extend  to  both 
sides  of  the  river,  here  some  seventy  feet  wide.  As  the  stream  is  so 
narrow,  it  is  almost  certain  that,  even  if  the  main  part  of  the  city 
was  on  one  bank,  the  other  bank  would  also  be  built  upon.  Philip, 
in  enlarging  and  ornamenting  it,  doubtless  confined  himself  to  the 
eastern  side,  the  part  which  lay  in  his  own  territory,  and  this  would 
then  become,  if  it  were  not  at  the  first,  distinctively  the  city  to  which 
the  western  side  would  stand  as  the  suburb.  This  is  the  view  long 
since  defended  by  Hess  {Lehre  u.  Thaten  misers  Herrit,  1806),  and  upon 
his  map  Bethsaida  is  placed  on  the  west  side  of  the  Jordan  near  its 
mouth,  and  Bethsaida  Julias  opposite  to  it  on  the  east.  It  is  said  by 
Rohr  (Palestine,  154),  "  Bethsaida  Julias  lay  on  the  northeast  shore 
of  the  lake  near  the  influx  of  the  Jordan,  and  probably  on  both  sides 
of  the  river."  (So  Calmet  and  others.  Wilson,  B.  E.,  iii.  170.)  In 
this  way  the  objection  is  met  that  Bethsaida  is  called  "Bethsaida  of 
Galilee  "  (John  xii.  21),  for  if  the  town  was  built  on  both  banks  of 
the  river,  a  part  was  in  Gaulanitis,  as  said  by  Josephus,  and  a  part^^ 
in  Galilee. 

But  are  there  any  ruins  on  either  bank?  Thomson  finds  on  the 
west  side  some  remains  of  ancient  buildings,  and  Col.  Wilson  speaks 
of  a  "few  small  mounds  and  heaps  of  stone."  (Recov.  Jer.,  269.') 
On  the  eastern  side  not  far  from  the  bank,  are  traces  of  an  ancient 
village,  foundations  of  old  walls,  which  Dr.  Thomson  identifies,  and 
with  great  probability,  with  Bethsaida  Julias." 


232  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR   LORD.  [Part   IV. 

Schumacher,  the  latest  explorer  of  that  region  (The  Jaulan,  Qt. 
St.,  Ai")ril,  1888),  places  Bethsaida  Julias  at  El  IMesadiyeh,  a  little  way 
from  the  Jordan's  mouth,  on  the  east  shore,  quite  near  the  lake.  He 
says  that  while  et-Tell  has  the  more  commanding  position,  no  more 
ornaments  or  inscriptions  have  been  found  there  than  at  ElMesadiyeh. 
He  suggests  that  the  residence  of  Philip  may  have  been  on  the  hill  et- 
Tell,  and  the  fishing  village  at  El  Araj  near  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan, 
where  are  ruins,  and  that  "  both  were  closely  united  by  the  beautiful 
road  still  visible." 

"Was  this  Bethsaida  on  the  east  side  of  the  Jordan,  of  which  we 
have  been  speaking,  the  Bethsaida  of  the  Evangelists,  in  which  the 
Lord  wrought  His  miracles,  and  on  which  He  pronounced  judgment? 
Let  us  examine  the  several  places  where  it  is  mentioned.  John  (i. 
44)  speaks  of  a  "city  "  —  wdXis —  of  this  name :  "  Philip  was  of  Beth- 
saida, the  city  of  Andrew  and  Peter."  And  again  (xii.  31) :  "  Philip 
was  of  Bethsaida  of  Galilee."  In  Matthew  (xi.  21)  it  is  classed  with 
Capernaum  and  Chorazin  as  a  city  that  had  seen  the  great  works  of 
the  Lord,  and  yet  had  not  repented.  (See  also  Luke  x.  13.)  In  its 
vicinity  was  the  healing  of  the  blind  man  (Mark  viii.  22):  "  He  Com- 
eth to  Bethsaida,  and  they  bring  a  blind  man  unto  Him  . 
and  He  took  him  by  the  hand  and  led  him  out  of  the  town  and 
healed  him."  And  not  far  from  it  was  the  feeding  of  the  five  thou- 
sand (Luke  ix.  10) :  "  He  took  the  disciples,  and  went  aside  privately 
into  a  desert  place  belonging  to  the  city  called  Bethsaida."  (Accord- 
ing to  the  R.  V. :  "  He  took  them  and  withdrew  apart  to  a  city  called 
Bethsaida."  But  that  Luke  puts  this  miracle  at  some  distance  from 
the  city  itself,  appears  from  verse  12:  "for  we  are  here  in  a  desert 
place.")  Of  this  "desert  place"  apart,  both  Matthew  and  Mark 
speak,  but  do  not  mention  it  as  at  or  near  Bethsaida.  (The  place ' 
where  the  5,000  were  fed  will  be  more  fully  examined  in  its  order.) 

That  this  desert  place  was  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake,  appears 
from  the  statements  of  all  the  Evangelists.  The  Lord  and  His  disci- 
ples went  to  it  by  a  ship  or  boat,  and  after  the  feeding  of  the  multi- 
tude, they  returned  in  the  same  way.  But  being  on  the  east  side, 
how  could  the  Lord  (Mark  vi.  45)  "  constrain  the  disciples  to  get  into 
the  ship,  and  to  go  to  the  other  side  before  unto  Bethsaida"  (in  R.  V. 
"  to  go  before  Him  unto  the  other  side  to  Bethsaida  ")  ?  Does  not  this 
imply  that  there  was,  also,  a  Bethsaida  on  the  west  side?  This  seems 
to  be  confirmed  by  John's  statement,  vi.  17,  that  "the  disciples  went 
over  the  sea  toward  Capernaum."  IMatthew  and  Mark  say  only  that 
when  they  were  gone  over  they  came  to  Gennesaret.  From  all  this 
the  inference  is  drawn  that  there  was  a  Bethsaida  on  the  west  side  of 


Part  IV.]  SITE   OF  BETHSAIDA.  233 

tlie  lake,  and  near  or  in  tlie  2)lain  of  Gennesaret.  After  the  feeding 
of  the  multitude  near  the  eastern  Bethsaida,  the  disciples  returned 
across  the  sea  to  the  wcstei-n  Bethsaida.  I'hus  there  were  two 
Bethsaidas,  the  eastern  in  Gaulanitis,  in  Philip's  territory ;  the  west- 
ern in  Galilee,  and  under  Herod.  It  is  also  said  that  John  speaks 
of  ■'  Bethsaida  of  Galilee,"  as  if  to  distinguish  it  from  another  of  the 
same  name,  not  of  Galilee. 

But  apparently  to  the  time  of  Reland  (1714  A.  D.)  only  one  Beth- 
saida had  been  thought  of,  although  the  difficulties  of  the  matter  as 
just  stated  had  been  felt  and  various  solutions  j^roposed.  (Raumer, 
109,  note;  Rob.,  ii.  413,  note  6.) 

Reland  (653)  conjectured  that  there  Avere  two  Bethsaiclas,  one  on 
the  east  of  Jordan  in  Gaulanitis,  and  one  on  the  west  side  of  the 
lake  in  Galilee,  and  this  conjecture  has  been  almost  universally 
received  as  the  true  solution.  But  he  himself  was  aware  of  the 
improbability  that  two  towns  of  the  same  name  should  lie  upon 
the  same  lake  only  a  few  miles  apart,  and  adopted  this  solution 
only  because  he  had  no  other  to  give.  Atque  ita,  quamvis  non  sim 
IjrocUvis  ad  statuendas  duas  pluresve  urhes  ejusdem  nominis  {quod  fle- 
rumque  ad  solvendam  aliquam  difficultateni  ultimum  est  refugium'),  Mc 
tamen  puto  id  necessario  fieri  oportere.  He  does  not,  however,  allow 
that  there  is  any  mention  by  the  Lord  of  the  Bethsaida  east  of  Jor- 
dan. CTiristus  de  Bethsaida  loquens  non  jjotiiit  nisi  de  sola  Oalilaica 
intelligi. 

But  do  the  accounts  of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  and  the 
subsequent  crossing  of  the  lake,  make  imperative  the  theory  of  two 
Bethsaidas?  Most  agree  that  somewhere  in  the  territory  of  the  Beth- 
saida east  of  the  lake,  the  multitude  was  fed.  But  the  exact  site  of 
the  city  we  do  not  know,  nor  where  was  "the  desert  place  "  of  the  feed- 
ing. Thomson  thinks  that  he  finds  this  place  at  "the  point  where 
the  hills  on  the  east  side  of  the  plain  Butaiha  come  to  the  edge  of 
the  lake."  This  plain  is  said  by  Col.  "Wilson  to  be  two  and  a  half 
miles  long,  and  one  and  a  half  wide,  but  some  make  it  much  larger. 
The  place  of  feeding  must  have  been  some  two  or  three  miles  south- 
easterly of  the  Jordan,  Tell  Hum  lying  a  little  northwest  across  the 
end  of  the  lake,  and  the  land  of  Gennesaret  lying  to  the  south  of 
Tell  Hum.  "At  the  southeastern  end  of  this  plain,  Butaiha,  the 
hills  w^hich  bound  it  approach  witliin  a  half  mile  of  the  lake  shore, 
where  they  form  an  angle  with  those  which  extend  due  south  along 
the  eastern  side  of  the  lake."  At  the  foot  of  the  high  hill  at  this 
angle  is  located  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand.  McGarvcy  (338) 
says:   "  Here  is  a  smooth  grassy  plain,  the  lake  near  at  hand,  and  not 


23*  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LOJRD.  [Part  IV, 

far  away  the  mouutaiu  where  the  Lord  went  up  to  pray  when  He 
had  sent  away  the  multitude." 

Accepting  this  as  the  "desert  place,"  a  place  uninhabited,  be- 
longing to  Bethsaida,  and  the  city  Bethsaida  as  near  the  Jordan,  let 
us  put  in  order  the  events  of  the  afternoon  and  night.  Jesiis  leav- 
ing the  west  side,  probably  at  Capernaum,  with  His  disciples  seeks 
some  place  on  the  eastern  shore  where  He  may  be  alone  with  them. 
There  is  no  reason  to  think  that  He  would  go  further  than  to  attain 
this  end,  and  such  a  retreat  He  would  find  at  the  place  we  have 
mentioned.  The  people  at  Capernaum  see  Him  go,  and  they  and  the 
people  of  the  adjacent  villages  follow  Him  by  land.  After  the  feeding 
of  the  multitude.  He  constrains  His  disciples  to  depart  in  the  boat 
while  He  remains  to  dismiss  the  people.  He  directs  them  to  go  be- 
fore Him  to  Bethsaida,  for  this  was  not  far  distant,  and  there  He 
will  rejoin  them  and  go  with  them  to  Capernaum.  But  the  wind 
arising,  they  are  driven  down  to  the  middle  of  the  lake  where  it  is 
some  six  miles  broad,  and  opposite  to  Gennesaret.  Here,  early  in 
the  morning,  the  Lord  meets  them,  walking  upon  the  sea,  and  the 
wind  ceasing,  "immediately  the  ship  was  at  the  land,"  and  they 
go  thence  to  Capernaum. 

That  the  discijoles  expected  Jesus  to  rejoin  them  and  go  with 
them  to  CaiJernaum  appears  from  John  (vi.  17):  "TheyM'ere  going 
over  the  sea  to  Capernaum,  and  it  was  now  dark,  and  Jesus  had  not 
yet  come  to  them."  Godet  remarks:  "It  is  more  simple  to  suppose 
that,  inasmuch  as  the  direction  from  Bethsaida  Julias  is  nearly  par- 
allel with  the  northern  shore,  Jesus  had  appointed  for  them  a  meet- 
ing place  at  some  point  on  that  side,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan,  for 
example,  where  He  counted  upon  joining  them  again."  "Probably 
they  were  intending  to  coast  along  the  shore  between  Bethsaida  Ju- 
lias and  Capernaum;  in  this  they  were,  no  doubt,  following  their 
Master's  directions.  The  words  that  follow  show  clearly  that  they 
expected  Him  to  rejoin  them  at  some  point  on  the  coast."  (M.  and  M. 
in  loco.     Rob.  iii.  378.     See  Gardiner,  Har.  101,  note.) 

Let  us  examine  the  reasoning  of  those  who  affirm  a  western  Beth- 
saida near  Capernaum,  When  Jesus  directed  His  disciples  to  enter 
the  ship,  and  go  before  Him  to  the  western  side  of  the  lake  (R. 
V.  "to  go  before  Him  unto  the  other  side  to  Bethsaida"),  He 
mentions,  according  to  Mark  (vi.  45),  Bethsaida  as  their  point  of 
destination;  according  to  John  (vi.  17),  Capernaum  (R.  V.,  "they 
were  going  over  the  sea  unto  Capernaum  ").  The  inference,  there- 
fore, is  that  the  two  cities  were  situated  near  each  other  on  the  shore 
of  the  lake.     That  they  were  in  the  land  of  Gennesaret,  or  near  it,  it 


Fart  IV.]  SITE   OF  BETHSAIDA.  •  235 

is  said,  appears  from  the  statement  of  John  (vi.  21),  tliat  after  Jesus 
joined  them  in  the  shi^j,  "it  was  immediately  at  the  land  whither  they 
went,"  i.  e.,  at  Capernamn.  But  Matthew  says:  "When  they  were 
gone  over,  they  came  into  the  land  of  Gennesaret."  R.  V.,  "They 
came  to  the  land,  unto  Gennesaret."  (So  Mark  vi.  53.)  The  infer- 
ence, therefore,  is  that  Capernaum  was  in  or  near  Gennesaret,  and 
Bethsaida  adjacent  to  it.  This  conclusion,  Robinson,  who  puts  Ca- 
pernaum at  Khan  Minyeh  and  Bethsaida  at  et-Tabigah,  holds  "  to  be 
incontrovertible. " 

But  let  us  briefly  consider  it.  The  first  proposition  is,  that  as 
both  Capernaum  and  Bethsaida  are  mentioned  as  the  point  to  which 
the  disciples  should  sail,  they  must  have  been  near  each  other. 
According  to  Mark,  the  Lord  directed  them  to  go  to  Bethsaida;  what 
is  said  in  John  is  simjjly  narrative :  "  They  were  going  over  the  sea 
to  Capernaum."  This  is  rendered  byAlford:  "  They  were  making 
for  the  other  side  of  the  sea,  in  the  direction  of  Capernaum "  ; 
this  city  being,  as  the  Lord's  residence,  the  point  of  ultimate 
destination. 

But,  if  we  put  Bethsaida  at  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan,  and  Caper- 
naum at  Tell  Hum,  the  two  cities  were,  in  point  of  fact,  near  to  each 
other,  the  distance  between  them  being  only  about  two  or  two  and 
a  half  miles.  The  relative  positions  of  the  two  places,  according 
to  Col.  Wilson,  are  such,  that  to  reach  Tell  Hum  from  the  point  on 
the  eastern  shore  where  the  Lord  then  was,  a  boat  would  naturally 
go  in  a  northwesterly  direction,  and  so  pass  near  Bethsaida  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Jordan;  and  here  the  disciples  expected  Him  to  rejoin 
them.  McGregor  (Rob  Roy,  364  ff.)  argues  from  the  usual  force  and 
•direction  of  the  winds,  that  to  put  Bethsaida  at  Ain  Tabigah  best 
meets  the  natural  conditions.  But  his  experience  was  too  brief  for 
a  conclusive  judgment. 

The  second  proposition  is,  that  as  the  disciples  were  going  to 
Capernaum,  and  lauded  at  some  point  in  Gennesaret,  Capernaum 
must  have  been  at  or  near  that  point.  But  it  is  clear  from  Mark  vi. 
53)  that  He  did  not  land  at  Capernaum,  and  was  at  some  distance  from 
it ;  and  went  thither  slowly,  healing  the  sick  by  the  way.  It  is  said 
by  Robinson  (iii.  350,  note)  :  "During  the  early  part  of  the  day  Jesus 
healed  many,  apparently  before  reaching  Capernaum." 

We  do  not,  then,  feel  compelled  to  put  another  Bethsaida  on  the 
west  side  of  the  lake,  in  or  near  Gennesaret.  If  at  the  mouth  of  the  Jor 
dan,  it  would  answer  to  the  statements  of  the  Evangelists,  and  would 
be,  in  fact,  a  little  distance  from  Tell  Hum. 

The  various  oj^inious  respecting  Bethsaidi  may  be  thus  summed 
up: 


236  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

1.  1.  That  there  was  but  one  Betlisaida,  and  this  on  the  west  side 
of  the  lake.  This  was  the  early  and  general  belief.  But  as  to  the  exact 
site  there  was  no  agreement,  (a.)  Some  said  that  it  was  near  Tiberias, 
and  here  was  put  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  in  the  "desert  place." 
To  reach  it,  the  Lord  crossed  from  one  side  of  a  bay  to  the  other  side  in 
a  ship,  but  did  not  cross  the  lake,  (b.)  That  its  territory  extended 
along  the  northern  shore  of  the  lake  to  the  east  side  where  was  the 
desert  place,     (c.)  That  it  was  a  suburb  of  Capernaum. 

2.  That  it  was  on  the  southeast  side  of  the  lake,  and  nearer  the  exit 
than  the  entrance  of  the  Jordan. 

II.  That  there  was  one  Bethsaida,  at  the  entrance  of  the  Jordan, 
and  lying  on  both  sides  of  the  river. 

Thomson,  DeSaulcy,  Col.  Wilson,  Conder,  Riddle,  and  Gardiner 
doubtful. 

III.  That  there  were  tw^o  Bethsaidas,  one  on  the  east,  and  one  on 
the  west  side. 

The  advocates  of  the  last  view  are  the  most  numerous. 

For  two  Bethsaidas,  one  at  B.  Julias  on  east  side,  and  one  some- 
where on  the  western  shore :  Bitter,  Robinson,  Caspari,  Godet,  Ellicott, 
Wieseler,  Edersheim,  Geikie,  Socin,  Farrar,  Weiss,  Tristram,  Hender- 
son, Van  der  Velde.  But  these  are  not  agreed  where  the  western 
Bethsaida  is  to  be  placed. 

For  Khan  Minyeh :  Ritter,  Van  der  Velde,  Caspari,  Weiss. 

Ain  Tabigah:  Robinson,  Tristram,  McGregor. 

A  suburb  of  Capernaum :  Caspari,  Edersheim. 

On  southeast  side  of  the  lake:  Lightfoot. 

Returning  now  to  the  site  of  Capernaum ;  in  favor  of  Tell  Hum  is 
its  name.  Caphernaum  is  generally  derived  from  Kefr  Nahum  —  "the 
village  of  Nahum,"  or  as  others,  "  the  village  of  consolation."  (See 
T.  G.  Lex.)  Of  this  name  the  Talmudists  give  several  variations, 
but  all  agree  in  retaining  the  syllable  honm,  which  favors  its  identi- 
fication with  Tell  Hum.  (Neubauer,  221  ;  Hamburger,  ii.  636.) 
Thomson  explains  the  substitution  of  Tell-(hill)  for  Kefr-(village,)  by 
the  fact  that  the  Arabs  apply  to  a  heap  of  ruins  the  term  Tell.  Thus 
Kefr  Nahum  becoming  ruinous  was  changed  into  Tell  Nahum,  and 
then  abbreviated  into  Tell  Hum. 

The  extent  and  antiquity  of  its  ruins  are  also  in  its  favor;  and 
its  position,  as  near  the  border  line  of  the  territories  of  Herod 
and  Philip,  thus  making  it  a  fit  place  for  the  receipt  of  customs 
(Matt.  ix.  9).  Had  Capernaum  been  at  Khan  iVIinyeh,  it  would  have 
been  too  far  from  the  border,  the  tolls  being  paid  to  Herod  not  to 
the  Romans  (see  Schiirer,  in  Riehm,  Art.  ZoU).  These  remarks  wiU 
also  apply  to  it  as  a  garrison  town. 


Part   IV.]  SITE   OF   CHORAZIN.  237 

Tliere  is,  however,  one  objection  to  be  noticed —  the  absence  of  any 
harbor  at  Tell  Hum,  natural  or  artificial.  Fishing  boats  could  not  lie 
there  safely,  but  would  go  south  toward  Tabigah,  where  there  is  a 
little  bay  of  which  Tristram  says:  "  The  white  beach  gently  shelves, 
and  is  admirably  adapted  for  fishing  boats.  .  .  .  The  sand  has  just 
the  gentle  slope  fitted  for  the  fishermen  running  up  their  boats  and 
beaching  them."  (See  McGregor,  Rob  Roy,  342.)  But  in  this 
respect  Tell  Hum  and  Khan  Miuyeh  seem  to  have  been  in  the  same 
position,  the  latter  having  to  find  its  harborage  south  of  it  on  the 
shore  of  Gennesaret. 

In  favor  of  Tell  Hum,  Thomson  appeals  to  tradition:  "  So  far  as 
I  can  discover,  after  spending  many  weeks  in  this  neighborhood  off 
and  on  for  a  quarter  of  a  century,  the  invariable  tradition  of  the  Arabs 
and  Jews  fixes  Capernaum  at  Tell  Hum,  and  I  believe  correctly." 
(See  also  Col.  Wilson,  Recov.  Jer.,  298.) 

Some  notice  must  be  taken  here  of  the  argument  in  favor  of 
Khan  Minyeh  derived  from  its  name.  It  is  said  that  Minyeh  in  its 
original  form  Mini,  meant,  according  to  the  Rabbis,  heretics,  or  Jews 
who  had  become  Christians.  Kefr  Minyeh  was  "  the  village  of  the 
heretics."  It  was  in  this  opprobious  way  that  they  named  Caper- 
naum, it  having  been  the  place  where  Jesus  lived.  We  are  therefore 
to  regard  Khan  Minyeh  as  Capernaum.  (So  Conder,  H.  B.  326,  Sepp. 
ii.  2  Theil,  243.     See  Art.  Capernaum  in  Riehm.) 

But  on  the  other  side,  it  is  said  by  Edersheim,  i.  365,  that  "cer- 
tain vile  insinuations  of  the  Rabbis  connecting  it  with  heresy,  point 
to  KepherNachum  —  Capernaum  —  as  the  home  of  Jesus."  It  is  evi- 
dent that  little  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  Jewish  tradition  in  the 
matter. 

We  have  still  to  inquire  respecting  the  site  of  Chorazin.  Two  or 
three  miles  northwest  from  Tell  Hum  are  some  ruins  called  Khirbet 
Kerazeh.  They  were  visited  by  Robinson,  who  descril;)es  them  as 
"a  few  foundations  of  black  stones,  the  remains  evidently  of  a  poor 
and  inconsiderable  village,"  and  regards  them  as  "too  trivial  ever  to 
have  belonged  to  a  place  of  any  importance.  Chorazin  too,  accord- 
ing to  Jerome,  lay  upon  the  shore  of  the  lake,  but  the  site  is  an  hour 
distant,  shut  in  among  the  hills,  without  any  view  of  the  lake,  and 
remote  from  any  public  road,  ancient  or  modern."  While  Robinson 
thus  rejects  Kerazeh  as  the  site  of  Chorazin,  Thomson  is  equally 
decided  in  its  favor.  "  I  have  scarcely  a  doubt  about  the  correctness 
of  the  identification,  though  Dr.  Robinson  rejects  it  almost  with  con- 
tempt. But  the  name  Korazy  is  nearly  the  Arabic  for  Chorazin;  the 
situation,  two  miles  north  of  Tell  Hum,  is  just  where  we  might  ex- 
pect to  find  it;  the  ruins  are  quite  adequate  to  answer  the  demands 


238  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

of  history,  and  there  is  no  rival  site."  With  Thomson  Keith  agrees: ' 
"There  seems  no  reason  for  questioning  that  Korazy  is  the  Chorazin 
of  Scripture,  in  which  it  is  not  said  to  stand  on  the  shore  of  the  lake 
of  Tiberias,  as  Capernaum  and  Bethsaida  are.  We  reached  it  in 
fifty-five  minutes  from  the  chief  ruin  of  Tell  Hum,  from  three  to  four 
miles  distant.  It  lies  almost  directly  to  the  west  of  the  point  where 
the  Jordan  flows  into  the  lake.  It  retains  the  name  and  is  known  by 
it  still  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  country  round,  and,  as  we 
repeatedly  inquired,  especially  at  Safet,  by  no  other.  Of  these  ruins 
Col.  Wilson  (Recov.  Jer. ,  270)  says:  "They  cover  an  area  as  large, 
if  not  larger,  than  the  ruins  of  Capernaum."  He  finds  the  distance 
from  Tell  Hum  north  to  be  two  and  one-half  miles.  The  identifica- 
tion of  these  ruins  with  Chorazin  is  now  generally  accepted. 

This  topographical  discussion,  extended  as  it  is,  by  no  means  ex- 
hausts the  subject.  Certainty  as  regards  these  sites  is  at  present 
unattainable;  but  as  the  question  now  stands, ^t  is  most  probable  that 
Capernaum  was  at  Tell  Hum,  that  Chorazin  was  a  little  to  the  north 
of  it;  and  that  there  was  but  one  Bethsaida,  and  this  near  the 
entrance  of  the  Jordan  into  the  lake,  and  lying  on  both  banks.  All 
these  places  seem  to  have  been  of  considerable  size  and  importance, 
and  nea  to  one  another.  It  is  a  strong  objection  to  a  western 
Bethsaida  that  the  only  "mighty  works"  that  are  recorded  as  done 
by  the  Lord  in  any  Bethsaida,  are  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand 
(Luke  ix.  10),  and  the  healing  of  a  blind  man  (Mark  viii.  23).  That 
these  were  both  at  Bethsaida  Julias  is  generally  admitted.  It  would 
be  strange,  therefore,  if  the  woes  pronounced  by  Him  (Matt.  xi.  21) 
were  not  on  the  city  where  these  miracles  were  done,  but  on  another, 
in  which,  as  far  as  recorded.  He  wrought  none. 

We  have  therefore  left  unnoticed  the  position  taken  by  some  that 
"  the  land  of  Gennesaret "  is  to  be  identified  with  the  plain  El  Ba- 
tihah  at  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan.'^  The  arguments  by  which  it  is 
supported  are  briefly  these,  that  the  political  divisions,  which  assigned 
the  Jordan  as  the  eastern  limit  of  Galilee,  had  no  existence  prior  to 
the  will  of  Herod  partitioning  his  dominions  among  his  sons;  that 
there  was  but  one  Bethsaida,  and  that  Bethsaida  Julias  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Jordan ;  that  the  Scriptures  show  that  Capernaum  and  Beth- 
saida were  but  a  step  apart,  and  therefore  Capernaum  was  in  the 
plain  El  Batihah ;  and  that  this  site  best  corresponds  to  the  language 
of  Josephus.     Admitting  that  there  is  some  force  in  these  considera- 


iSo  Norton,  Notes,  115;  Winer,  i.  2.38;  "Van  der  Velde,  Memoir,  304. 

*See  article  by  Tregelles,  in  Journal  of  Classical  and  Sacred  Piiilologj',  vol.  iii.  p. 
145.  See  also  article,  vol.  ii.  p.  220,  by  Thrupp,  who  regards  Gennesaret  as  El  Balihali, 
but  identifies  Capernaum  with  Tell  Hum,  and  finds  no  trace  or  tradition  of  a  Bethsaida 
on  the  western  side  of  the  lake. 


Part  IV.]  CIRCUITS  IN  GALILEE.  239 

tions,  still  they  are  by  no  means  so  weighty  as  to  lead  us  to  change 
the  position  of  the  land  of  Gennesaret  from  the  west  to  the  north  of 
the  lake.* 

We  know  not  whether  private  and  personal  reasons  had  any 
influence  in  the  selection  of  this  city  as  the  central  point  of  His 
labors  in  Galilee.  Some,  as  Lightfoot  and  Ewald,  have  sup- 
posed that  Joseph  had  possessions  there,  and  that  the  family,  the 
Lord's  mother  and  brethren,  were  now  residing  there  (John  ii. 
i2).  More  probably,  in  the  selection  of  Capernaum  He  was 
determined  chiefly  by  local  position  and  relations.  Lying  upon 
the  sea  of  Galilee,  and  the  great  roads  from  Egypt  to  Syria  run- 
ning through  it,  and  in  the  direct  line  from  Jerusalem  to  Damas- 
cus,^ it  gave  Him  such  facilities  of  intercourse  with  men  as  He 
could  not  have  had  in  more  secluded  Nazareth.  Not  only  could 
He  readily  visit  all  parts  of  Galilee,  but  by  means  of  the  lake 
He  had  ready  access  also  to  the  region  upon  the  other  side,  and  to 
the  towns  both  north  and  south  in  the  valley  of  the  Jordan.  From 
it  he  could  easily  make  circuits  into  Galilee  on  the  west,  into 
Trachonitis  on  the  north,  and  into  Decapolis  and  Persea  on  the 
east  and  south.  Besides  this  local  fitness  for  His  work,  it  was 
also  the  residence  of  Simon  and  Andrew,  and  but  a  little  way 
from  Bethsaida,  the  city  of  Philip. 

It  does  not  appear  from  the  Gospels  whether  the  Lord  had  a 
house  of  His  own  at  Capernaum,  or  dwelt  with  some  relative  or 
disciple.  His  own  words  (Matt.  viii.  20),  "the  Son  of  Man  hath 
not  where  to  lay  His  head,"  seem  decisive  that  He  did  not  own 
any  dwelling,  but  was  dependent  upon  others  even  for  a  place 
where  to  sleep.  He  is  spoken  of  as  entering  the  house  of  Peter 
(Matt.  viii.  14),  and  the  form  of  expression  (Mark  ii.  1),  "it  was 
noised  abroad  that  He  was  at  home,"  (R.  V.  margin,  compare 
iii.  19)  implies  that  He  had  a  fixed  place  of  abode.  Norton,  in 
common  with  many,  supposes  that  He  resided  in  the  house  of 
Peter;  Alexander  (on  Mark  i.  29)  suggests  that  Peter  may  "have 
opened  a  house  for  the  convenience  of  his  Lord  and  master  in 
the  intervals  of  His  itinerant  labors."  If,  however.  His  mother 
was  "now  living  at  Capernaum,  which  is  by  no  means  certain. 


1  See  Ewald,  Jahrbuch,  1856,  p.  144,  who  also  places  Gennesaret  on  the  north  of 
the  sea. 

«Kobin8on,  ii.  405;  Hitter,  Theil,  xv.  271, 


240  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

He  would  naturally  take  up  His  abode  with  her.  "  The  change 
of  abode,"  says  Alford,  "seems  to  have  included  the  whole 
family,  except  the  sisters,  who  may  have  been  married  at 
Nazareth."  Greswell  asserts  that  the  incident  respecting  the 
tribute  money  (Matt.  xvii.  24)  proves  indisputably  that  He  was 
a  legal  inhabitant  of  Capernaum. 


Tell  HuniD-^"^ 

'JB.JuUas 

.EB.Kana             /  ,-- ^ 

Magdalgi^ 

fGergesa 

/     ,-''' 

y'^BaXtin            ^\V». 

1 

"' \                /-^^—^ 

Tiberia^A 

^ 

/"^~~^---^            / 

— -cj  Sepp'horis              /         ' ■ 

LxfK.Kenna 

-^^—^-^      \V 

/     \^^ 

\j                \-^__^ 

!rarich\eaeo| 

Jfazareth  i^ 

P  MlTabor                          I 

ojfain 

1 .= 

Sea  of  Galilee,  and  the  part  of  eastern  Galilee  adjacent. 

The  arrival  of  the  Lord  at  Capernaum,  there  to  take  up  His 
abode,  offers  us  a  fitting  place  in  which  to  speak  of  Ilis  Galilsean 
work  in  its  general  practical  features,  and  to  give  a  brief  out- 
line of  it. 

In  many  points  it  was  very  unlike  His  earlier  work  in 
Judaea.  So  far  as  we  can  learn.  He  did  not  then  go  from  place 
to  place  baptizing,  nor  does  He  seem  to  have  made  any  use  of 
the  synagogues  for  the  purpose  of  teaching.  Like  the  Baptist, 
He  did  not  seek  the  people  in  their  cities  and  villages,  but  made 
the  people  seek  Him  (Matt.  iii.  5;  xi.  7).  In  Galilee  the  Lord 
began  immediately  to  visit  the  people  in  all  their  cities  and 


Part  IV.]  CIRCUITS   IN   GALILEE.  241 

villages,  making  Capernaum  the  central  point  of  His  labors,  and 
this  He  did  in  a  systematic  manner;  "  He  went  round  about  the 
villages  teaching  "  (Mark  vi.  6).  "  In  a  circle,"  says  Alexander, 
''  or  circuit,  that  is,  not  merely  round  about,  but  on  a  regular 
concerted  plan  of  periodical  visitation."  We  have  not  sufficient 
data  to  determine  the  local  order  of  these  visitations  ;  but  it  is 
natural  to  suppose  that  He  would  first  visit  the  places  near 
Capernaum,  and  then  those  more  remote  (Mark  i.  38).  From 
this  city  as  a  centre  He  would  go  forth  to  preach  in  the  adjoin- 
ing towns,  and  by  degrees  extend  His  labors  to  those  more  dis- 
tant. And  His  course  would  be  directed  rather  to  the  west 
than  to  the  east,  both  because  Galilee  lay  to  the  westward,  and 
because  of  the  semi-heathenish  character  of  the  people  who  lived 
beyond  the  lake.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  considerable  time,  as  we 
we  shall  see,  ere  He  visited  the  regions  of  Caesarea  Philippi  and 
of  Decapolis. 

During  these  circuits  we  find  the  Lord  journeying  from 
place  to  place,  remaining  for  the  most  part  only  a  little  while  in  a 
village.  In  these  journeys  He  was  attended  by  His  disciples;  at 
first  by  those  who  had  before  been  with  Him  in  Judaea,  and 
whom  He  recalled  ;  and  then  by  others ;  and  afterward  by  the 
body  of  the  Apostles,  who  became  His  constant  attendants.  At 
a  later  period  of  His  ministry.  His  mother  and  other  women 
accompanied  Him  in  some  of  His  cu'cuits  (Luke  viii.  2);  and  He 
was  followed  by  crowds  who  were  drawn  to  Him  by  various 
motives.  His  common  mode  of  procedure  was  apparently  this : 
on  entering  a  city  where  was  a  synagogue,  He  availed  Himself 
of  the  privilege  which  His  reputation  as  a  rabbi  and  prophet 
gave  Him,  to  teach  the  people  from  the  Scriptures.  This  He  did 
upon  the  Sabbaths  and  synagogue  days.  These  synagogue  days 
were  Mondays  and  Thursdays,  being  the  ordinary  market  days 
when  the  country  people  came  into  the  town,  and  for  this  reason 
the  services  on  these  days  were  of  a  more  elaborate  character 
(Eders.,  i.  432).  At  other  times  He  preaclied  in  the  streets  or 
fields,  or  sitting  in  a  boat  upon  the  sea;  in  every  convenient 
place  where  the  people  were  willing  to  hear  Him.  His  fame  as 
a  healer  of  the  sick  caused  many  to  be  brought  to  Him,  and  He 
appears  in  general  to  have  healed  all  (Mark  vi.  56;  Matt.  ix.  35). 
11 


242  THE   LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD,  [Part  IV. 

His  sojourn  in  any  single  village  was  necessarily  brief^  and 
therefore  those  who  had  been  really  impressed  by  His  woi'ks  or 
words,  and  desired  to  see  or  hear  Him  more,  followed  Him  to 
the  adjoining  towns,  or  sought  Him  at  Capernaum.  The 
disciples  do  not  appear  to  have  taken  any  public  part  as  teachers, 
but  may  privately  have  aided  Him  in  various  ways  to  dissemi- 
nate truth  among  the  people.  The  expenses  of  these  journeys 
were  probably  borne  by  the  contributions  of  the  disciples,  and 
by  the  voluntary  offerings  of  the  grateful  who  had  been  healed, 
and  of  their  friends.  After  the  Twelve  had  been  chosen,  one 
of  their  number  seem  to  have  acted  as  treasurer,  taking  charge 
of  the  moneys  designed  for  the  common  use  (see  John  xii.   6). 

A  specimen  of  the  daily  activity  of  the  Lord  may  be  found 
in  the  narrative  of  His  early  work  in  Capernaum.  He  enters 
upon  the  Sabbatli  into  the  synagogue  and  teaches,  filling  all 
His  hearers  with  astonishment  at  His  words.  He  there  heals  a 
demoniac,  probably  immediately  after  the  discourse.  Leaving 
the  synagogue,  He  enters  Peter's  house  and  heals  a  sick  woman, 
and  crowds  coming  to  Him  at  evening,  He  heals  many  others. 
The  next  morning,  after  a  time  of  meditation  and  prayer.  He 
departs  to  another  city.  Similar,  doubtless,  in  their  main 
features  to  this,  were  His  labors  upon  subsequent  Sabbaths. 
In  mentioning  these  circuits,  none  of  the  Evangelists  gives  them 
in  regular  order,  or  relates  the  events  in  chronological  succession. 
Each  has  his  own  principle  of  selection  and  of  arrangement,  with 
which  we  are  not  now  concerned;  but  it  is  obvious  when  we 
remember  how  great  was  the  Lord's  activity,  how  many  His 
works  and  words,  that  within  the  limits  of  their  narratives  only 
very  brief  outlines  can  be  given. 

The  stages  of  progress  in  the  Lord's  labors  in  Galilee  will  be 
noticed  as  we  meet  them.  Yet  it  should  be  noted  as  charac- 
teristic of  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  that  we  do  not  find 
any  open  avowal  of  His  Messianic  claims.  He  wished  the  peo- 
ple to  infer  who  He  was  from  His  words  and  works  rather  than  to 
learn  it  from  any  express  declarations  of  His  own.  He  preached 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  as  at  hand,  and  illustrated  it  by  His 
miracles.  (Of  the  nature  and  number  of  these  we  sliall  speak 
later.)     If  the  people  had  sufficient  spiritual  discernment  to  see 


Part  IV.]  CIRCUITS   IN   GALILEE.  243 

the  true  import  of  what  He  said  and  did,  this  was  all  the  proof 
that  was  needed  that  He  was  the  Messiah. 

We  give  at  this  point,  for  the  sake  of  convenient  reference, 
an  outline  of  the  Lord's  Galilsean  work  to  the  death  of  the  Bap- 
tist, divided  into  periods  of  sojourn  in  Capernaum,  and  of  cir- 
cuits in  the  adjacent  territories.  The  grounds  for  the  order  will 
be  stated  as  the  particular  periods  come  under  consideration. 

First  Sojourn  in  Capernaum. 
Rejected  at  Nazareth,  He  comes  to  Capernaum.  In  its 
neighborhood  He  calls  the  four  disciples  while  fishing  upon  the 
lake,  and  works  the  miracle  of  the  draught  of  fishes.  On  the 
following  Sabbath  He  preaches  in  the  synagogue,  and  heals  the 
demoniac,  and  afterward  heals  the  mother  of  Peter's  wife.  In 
the  afternoon,  after  the  sun  had  set.  He  heals  many  others. 
Early  the  next  morning  He  rises  to  pray,  and  then  departs  to 
preach  and  heal  in  the  adjacent  cities  and  villages. 

FIRST    CIRCUIT. 

He  visits  the  "next  towns,"  probably  those  lying  nearest 
Capei'naum,  as  Chorazin  and  Bethsaida.  No  particulars  of  this 
circuit  are  given,  except  that  He  heals  a  leper  "  in  one  of  the 
cities."  This  being  noised  abroad.  He  is  for  a  time  unable  to 
enter  any  city,  and  retires  to  secluded  places  where  the  people 
gather  to  Him.  After  an  absence,  it  may  be  of  some  weeks, 
He  returns  to  Capernaum. 

Second    Sojourn    in    Capernaum. 

Crowds  begin  to  gather  to  Him  so  soon  as  it  is  known  that 
He  is  at  home.  A  paralytic  is  brought  to  Hini,  whom  He  heals, 
forgiving  his  sins.  This  awakens  the  anger  of  the  Scribes,  who 
regard  it  as  an  assumption  of  the  Divine  prerogative.  He 
goes  forth  again  by  the  seaside,  and  teaches.  Walking  along 
the  shore,  He  calls  Levi.  He  goes  upon  a  Sabbath  through  a 
field  in  the  neighborhood  of  Capernaum  with  His  disciples,  and 
on  the  way  plucks  and  eats  the  ears  of  corn.  This  is  noted  by 
the  Pharisees  of  the  city  who  are  watching  Him.  He  enters 
the  second  time  into  the  synagogue,  and  heals  the  man  with  a 
withered  hand.  The  Pharisees  and  the  Herodians  now  conspire 
against  Him.  He  departs  to  the  seaside,  and  is  followed  by 
crowds. 


244  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

Leaving  Capernaum,  the  Lord  goes  to  a  mountain  in  the 
neighborhood,  and  after  a  night  spent  in  prayer,  calls  His  dis- 
ciples, and  from  them  chooses  the  twelve  apostles.  Great  mul- 
titudes now  gathering  to  Him,  He  delivers  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  and  returns,  apparently  the  same  day,  to  Capernaum, 
still  followed  by  the  multitudes.  He  heals,  immediately  upon 
His  return,  the  Centurion's  servant.  The  people  so  throng  Him, 
and  His  labors  are  so  incessant,  that  He  has  not  time  even  to 
eat,  and  His  friends  fear  for  His  sanity. 

SECOND    CIKCUIT. 

Soon  after,  He  goes  to  Nain,  and  raises  from  death  the 
widow's  son.  He  continues  His  ministry  in  the  adjacent  region. 
John  Baptist  sends  a  message  to  Him  from  his  prison  ;  to  which 
He  replies,  and  addresses  the  people  respecting  John.  He  dines 
with  Simon,  a  Pharisee,  and  is  anointed  by  a  woman  who  is  a 
sinner.     He  returns  again  to  Capernaum. 

Third  Sojourn  in    Capernaum. 
He  heals  a  blind  and  dumb  possessed  man,  whereupon  the 
Pharisees  blaspheme,  saying  that  He  is  aided    by  Beelzebub. 
His  mother  and  brethren  come  to  Him,  but  He  rejects  their 
claims.     He  goes  to  the  sea-shore  and  teaches  in  parables. 

THIRD    CIRCUIT. 

The  same  day  at  even  He  crosses  the  sea  with  His  disciples, 
and  stills  the  tempest.  He  heals  the  Gergesene  demoniacs;  and 
the  devils,  entering  into  a  herd  of  swine,  destroy  them.  The 
people  of  the  country  entreat  Him  to  depart,  and  He  returns 
to  Capernaum. 

Fourth   Sojourn  in    Capernaum. 

Here  Levi  makes  Him  a  feast.  He  raises  from  death  the 
the  daughter  of  Jairus,  and  heals  the  woman  with  an  issue  of 
blood,  the  two  blind  men,  and  a  dumb  possessed  man. 

FOURTH    CIRCUIT. 

He  goes  to  Nazareth,  and  is  a  second  time  rejected.  He 
teaches  in  the  villages  of  that  part  of  Gab  lee,  and  sends  out  the 
twelve  apostles  on  their  mission.  About  this  time  Herod  puts 
the  Baptist  to  death,  and  now  hearing  of  Jesus  and  His  miracles, 


Part  IV.]      JESUS  BEGINS  HIS  LABORS  AT  CAPERNAUM,     245 

wishes  to  see  Him.     Jesus  returns  to  Capernaum,  and  the  apos- 
tles gather  to  Him  there. 

April-May,  781.     A.D.  28. 

Arrivins^  at  Capernaum,  the  Lord  begins  to  gather  about  Matt.  iv.  18-23. 

Him  His  former  disciples,  that  they  may  accompany  and  Mark    i.  16-34. 

assist  Him  in  His  work.    Therairacleof  the  draught  of  fishes.  Luke    v.   l-ll. 

He  enters  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath,  and  there  heals  a  Luke  iv.  31-41. 
demoniac.     Thence  He  goes  the  same  day  to  the  house  of 

Peter,  and  heals  his  wife's  mother  of  a  fever,  and  in  the  Matt.  viii.  14-17. 
evening  He  heals  many  sick  persons  who  are  brought  to  Him. 

The  first  notice  we  have  of  the  Lord  after  leaving  Nazareth 
(Matt.  iv.  18;  Mark  i.  16;  Luke  v.  1),  brings  Him  before  us 
standing  on  the  shore  of  the  lake,  and  surrounded  by  people  that 
pressed  upon  Him  to  hear  the  word  of  God.  How  long  an  in- 
terval had  elapsed  since  He  left  Nazareth  we  have  no  data  to 
decide,  but  this  gathering  of  the  people  to  Him  presupposes  a 
period,  longer  or  shorter,  during  which  He  had  been  teaching. 
Not  improbably  He  may  have  been  several  days  upon  the  jour 
ney,  and  His  growing  reputation  as  a  prophert.,  joined  to  rumors 
of  what  had  taken  place  at  Nazareth,  would  procure  Him  audi- 
ence in  whatever  village  He  entered.  Especially  as  He  came 
near  the  lake,  the  numerous  cities  and  villages  would  furnish 
crowds  of  listeners  to  hear  one  who  spake  as  never  man  spake. 

It  was  as  He  thus  approached  Capernaum  that  He  met  upon 
the  lake  His  former  disciples,  Simon,  Andrew,  James  (this  is  the 
first  time  James  is  mentioned,  but  it  is  generally  accepted  that 
he  was  with  his  brother  John  at  Bethabara),  and  John,  and 
called  them  again  into  His  service.  We  have  already  seen  that 
on  leaving  Judaea,  His  baptismal  work  ceasing,  His  disciples  left 
Him  and  returned  to  their  homes  and  usual  pursuits.  To  the 
feast  (John  v.  1)  He  seems  to  have  gone  unattended,  nor  appar- 
t,ently  were  any  disciples  with  Him  at  Nazareth.  But  now  that 
John's  imprisonment  had  determined  the  character  of  His  future 
ministry.  He  proceeds  to  gather  around  Him  those  who  had 
already  been  workers  with  Him,  that  they  might  enter  upon 
this  new  sphere  of  labor.  Heretofore  their  relations  to  Him  had 
been  similar  to  their  previous  relations  to  John  the  Baptist, 
involving  only  a  temporary  absence  from  their  families  and  busi 


246  THE   LIFE  OF  OUR   LOKD.  [Part  IV. 

ness.  "These  disciples,  hitherto,"  says  Lightfoot,  "were  only 
as  private  men  following  Christ."  It  is  well  said  by  Bruce 
{'^ThVT^dmmgofWeTweTve^  Edin.  1887)  that  there  were  three 
stages  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Apostles  with  Christ :  1st,  as 
simple  beliej^crs  in  Him  as  the  Christ,  and  His  occasional  com- 
panions; 2(3,  the^al3andonment  of  secular  occupations,  and  a 
constant  attendance  on  His  person;  3d,  when  called  especially 
to  be  Apostles.  Now  the  Lord  sought  to  engage  them  in  a 
work  which  should  be  life-long,  and  which  was  incompatible 
with  other  pursuits.  They  should  now  be  His  constant  attend- 
ants, going  with  Him  wherever  He  went,  and  thus  be  necessarily 
separated  from  their  families  and  friends.  This  call  at  the  sea 
of  Galilee  to  follow  Him  was  not,  indeed,  as  Alford,  Caspari, 
and  others  suppose,  a  call  to  the  apostleship,  but  to  a  preliminary 
service;  and  those  thus  called  had  as  yet  httle  understanding 
what  labors,  dangers,  or  dignities  it  involved. 

To  one  who  considers  the  essentially  different  character  of 
Christ's  work  in  Judaea  and  in  Galilee,  it  will  not  appear  sur- 
prising that,  when  beginning  the  latter,  He  should  give  to  these 
disciples  a  new  and  distinct  call.  Only  neglect  to  note  this  differ- 
ence permits  anyone  to  speak  of  a  want  of  harmony  between 
John  and  the  Synoptists  upon  this  ground. 

From  the  narrative  of  Mark  (i.  1 6-2 1 ;  see  also  Matt.  iv.  1 8- 
23),  we  should  infer  that  the  call  of  Peter  and  Andrew,  James 
and  John,  was  the  Lord's  first  act  after  He  came  to  the  sea,  and 
perhaps  before  He  went  to  Ca,pernaum.  Luke,  however  (iv.  31 
-42),  places  the  preaching  in  the  synagogue,  the  healing  of  the 
demoniac  and  of  Peter's  wife's  mother  and  others,  and  His  first 
circuit,  before  this  call  (v.  1-11),  and  connects  it  with  the 
wonderful  draught  of  fishes.  But  we  shall  find  abundant  proof 
that  Luke  does  not  follow  the  chronological  order,  and  that 
nothing  decisive  can  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  he  places 
the  call  after  the  miracles  and  teaching.  Still,  as  his  accounts 
of  this  call  differ  somewhat  from  those  of  Mark  and  Matthew,  many 
have  been  led  to  regard  them  as  distinct,  and  as  happening  at 
different  times.'     The  peculiarity  of  the  call  iu  Luke,  according 

1  So  early,  Augustine,  and  recently,  Krafft,  Stier,  Gresvvell,  AJford,  Rig.,  Lex., 
Keil.    See  Trench,  100,  Ellicott,  164,  note. 


Part  IV.]   CALL  OF  THE  DISCIPLES  AT  SEA  OF  GALILEE,  247 

to  this  view,  is  that  it  was  later  than  that  in  Matthew  and 
Mark,  and  that  now  "the  disciples  forsook  all,  and  followed 
Him."  Now  they  became  fishers  of  men  (Luke  v.  10),  in  fulfill- 
ment of  His  previous  promise  (Matt.  iv.  19).  This  involved  the 
entire  relinquishment  of  their  secular  callings,  and  to  convince 
them  of  His  ability  to  take  care  of  them  and  supply  every  tem- 
poral need,  nut  excluding  other  and  higher  symbolical  meanings, 
^Tlie  Lord  worked  the  miracle  of  the  draught  of  fishes.  But  the 
words  of  both  Matthew  (iv.  20)  and  Mark  (i.  18)  are  express 
that  ''  they  straightway  forsook  their  nets  and  followed  Him." 
How,  then,  should  they  be  found  several  days  after  engaged  in 
their  usuul  occupations  ?  That,  whenever  the  Lord  was  at 
Capernaum,  these  disciples  were  wont  to  follow  their  calling  as 
fishermen,  as  said  by  Alford,  is  plainly  inconsistent  with  their 
relations  to  Him,  and  with  the  service  He  sought  from  them. 
Certainly  they  could  have  had  little  time  for  such  labors  amidst 
the  pressure  of  the  crowds  which  seem  to  have  ever  gathered 
around  Him  when  He  came  to  Capernaum.' 

The  circumstances  attending  the  call  of  the  disciples,  as 
related  by  the  several  Evangelists,  may  be  thus  arranged:  As 
Jesus  approaches  the  plain  of  Gennesaret  from  Nazareth,  teach- 
ing by  the  way,  many  flock  round  Him  to  hear  His  wonderful 
words.  Passing  along  the  level  and  sandy  shore,  where  the 
fishermen's  boats  were  drawn  up,  (whicli  Tristram  thinks  to  have 
been  the  beach  at  et-Tabigah)  He  sees  among  them  the  boats  of 
Simon  and  Andrew,  and  of  James  and  John,  who,  having  been 
fishing,  are  now  washing  their  nets.  As  the  people  press 
upon  Him,  He  requests  Simon  to  push  off  his  boat  from  the 
shore  a  little  way,  that  from  it  He  may  teach  the  multitude  as 
they  stand  before  Him.  After  His  discourse  is  ended.  He 
directs  Simon  and  Andrew,  and  perhaps  also  others  with  them, 
to  push  out  into  the  deep  waters  and  let  down  the  net.  This, 
after  a  little  hesitation  arising  from  the  ill-success  of  their  labors 
the  previous  night.  Simon  does,  and  they  take  so  great  a  num- 
ber of  fish  that  the  net  begins  to  break.  He  now  beckons  to 
those  in  the  other  boat,  James  and  John  and  their  companions, 
who  had  doubtless  been  watching  the  whole  proceeding,  and 


1  See  Ebrard,  .307. 


248  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR   LuRD.  [Part  IV. 

who  now  come  to  their  help,  and  both  boats  are  so  filled  as  to 
be  in  danger  of  sinking.  This  unexpected  success,  and  all  the 
attendant  circumstances,  make  such  a  powerful  impression  upon 
Simon's  mind,  that,  acting  with  his  usual  impetuosity,  he  casts 
himself  at  the  Lord's  feet,  saying,  "  Depart  from  me  for  I  am 
a  sinful  man,  0  Lord."  All  are  astonished,  and  see  a  Divine 
hand  in  what  had  happened.  Soon  after  this,  probably  so  soon 
as  they  reach  the  shore,  He  calls  Simon  and  Andrew,  in  whose 
ship  He  still  is,  to  follow  Him,  for  He  will  make  them  fishers 
of  men.  During  this  time  James  and  John  have  gone  a  little 
distance  from  them,  and  are  engaged  in  repairing  the  net  that 
had  been  broken.  Walking  upon  the  shore,  He  goes  to  them 
and  calls  them  also  to  follow  Him,  and  they,  leaving  their  father 
and  servants,  follow  Him. 

In  this  way  may  we  find  a  natural  and  easy  solution  of  the 
apparent  discrepancies  between  Matthew  and  Mark,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Luke,  on  the  other.  Luke  alone  relates  that  Jesus 
spake  to  the  people  from  Simon's  boat,  and  afterward  directed 
him  to  fish,  and  shows  in  what  relation  this  fishing  stood  to  the 
subsequent  call  of  the  fishermen.  Matthew  and  Mark  omit  all 
but  the  fact  that  they  were  engaged  in  their  usual  work  of 
fishing  when  thus  called.  There  is  then  no  such  opposition  in 
■he  accounts  as  to  make  it  necessary  to  refer  them  to  different 
f  ■/ents.' 

On  the  first  Sabbath  following  the  call  of  the  four  disciples, 
he  entered  the  synagogue  and  taught.  His  teaching  excited 
general  astonishment,  but  not  the  envy  that  manifested  itself  at 
Nazareth.  Present  in  the  synagogue  was  a  man  possessed  with 
a  devil,  whom  He  healed,  and  through  this  miracle  thus  publicly 
performed.  His  fame  spread  rapidly  through  all  Galilee  (]\Iark 
i.  28).  It  is  to  be  noted  that  He  did  not  here,  or  subsequently, 
permit  evil  spirits  to  bear  witness  to  His  Divine  character  or 
Messianic  claims  (Mark  i.  34;  Luke  iv.  41).  The  ground  of 
this  imposition  of  silence  may  have  been,  tliat  the  intent  with 
which  such  witness  was  offered  was  evil  ;  and  that  it  would  also 
have  tended  to  evil  by  awaking  premature  and  unfounded  expec- 


1  In  this  general  result  ar^rco  Lightfoot,  Ncwcomc,  Townsend,  Robinson,  Wieseler, 
Tischendorf,  Lichteiistein,  Ebrard,  Edersheim,  Giirdincr,  Godet,  Fuller.  For  an  answer 
to  objections,  see  Blunt,  Scriptural  Coincidences,  256,  note. 


Part  IV.]  FIRST  CIRCUIT  IN   GALILEE.  249 

tations  as  to  His  future  work.  It  will  be  noted  that  no  objection 
was  now  made  by  any  one  that  these  healings  were  on  the 
Sabbath. 

From  the  synagogue  the  Lord  proceeded  to  the  house  of 
Simon  and  Andrew,  where  He  healed  Simon's  wife's  mother. 
As  mention  is  made  by  John  (i.  44)  of  Bethsaida,  as  the  city  of 
Andrew  and  Peter,  it  has  been  conjectured  that  the  house  at 
Capernaum  was  that  of  the  parents  of  Simon's  wife  ;  but  against 
this  is  the  expression  "house  of  Simon  and  Andrew,"  which 
implies  the  joint  ownership  of  the  two  brothers.  It  is  therefore 
more  probable  that  they  had  now  left  Bethsaida  and  taken  up 
their  residence  at  Capernaum.'  The  healing  of  Peter's  wife's 
mother  seems  to  have  been  at  the  close  of  the  synagogue  service, 
and  before  evening,  for  at  evening  all  that  were  diseased  and 
possessed  were  brought  to  Him.  The  synagogue  service  closed 
at  or  before  noon,  and  it  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that 
she  "ministered  unto  them,"  that  she  served  them  at  the  table 
at  the  midday  meal.  According  to  Josephus,  the  hour  of  this 
meal  was,  on  the  Sabbath,  the  sixth,  or  twelve  o'clock.  That 
the  sick  should  wait  till  the  sun  was  gone  down  (Mark  i.  32), 
may  be  referred  to  the  great  scrupulosity  of  the  Jews  in  regard 
to  the  Sabbath. 

May,  781.      A.  D.  28. 

The  next  morning,  rising  up  early,  Jesus  goes  out  into  a  Mark   i.  35-37. 

solitary  place  to  pray.     Simon  and  others  go  out  to  seek  Him  Luke  iv.  42. 

because  the  multitude  waits  for  Ilim.     He  repMes,  that  He  Matt.  iv.  33. 

must  also  preach  in  the  neighboring  towns.    He  goes  preach-  Mark   i.  38-39. 

ing  in  the  synagogues  and  working  miracles.  Luke  iv.  43-44. 

This  quick  departure  from  Capernaum  may  perhaps  be  ex- 
plained from  the  Lord's  desire  that  a  period  of  reflection  should 
follow  the  surprise  and  wonder  which  His  words  and  works  had 
excited  in  the  minds  of  the  people.  Their  astonishment  at  the 
supernatural  power  He  manifested,  and  their  readmess  to  come 
to  Him  as  a  healer  of  the  sick,  did  not  prove  the  possession  of 
true  faith.  He,  therefore,  will  leave  them  to  meditate  on  what 
they  have  seen  and  heard,  and  depart  to  visit  the  other  cities 


1  This  may  be  a  slight  coiiflrmation  of  the  supposition  that  tihere  was  but  one 
Bethsaida,  and  that  east  of  the  Jordan. 

11* 


250  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV 

and  villages  of  Galilee,'  probably,  as  has  been  suggested,  follow 
ing  some  fixed  order  of  visitation. 

That  this,  the  Lord's  first  circuit  with  His  disciples,  must 
have  continued  some  time,  appears  from  the  statements  of  the 
Evangelists  (Mark  i.  39-ii.  1;  Luke  iv.  44;  Matt.  iv.  23),  though 
their  language  may,  perhaps,  describe  His  general  activity 
rather  than  any  particular  period  of  it.  The  expression  in 
Mark  ii.  ],  61  rjfitpCov,  "after  some  days,"  is  indefinite,  and  its 
length  must  be  otherwise  determined.  The  attempt  of  Gres- 
well  to  sliow,  from  the  number  of  places  He  would  visit,  and 
the  length  of  the  stay  He  would  make  in  each,  that  the  dura- 
tion of  a  circuit  would  never  be  less  than  three  months,  and 
probably  never  less  than  four,  rests  upon  no  sound  basis.  Ellicott 
(168),  going  to  the  other  extreme,  makes  this  circuit  to  have 
lasted  only  four  or  five  days.  It  is  intrinsically  improbable 
that,  as  Greswell  supposes,  Jesus  should  have  journeyed  now 
wholly  around  Galilee,  keeping  on  its  boundary  lines.  What 
particular  parts  of  the  province  He  at  this  time  visited,  we  have 
no  data  to  decide  ;  but  it  is  certain  that  early  in  His  ministry 
He  visited  the  cities  of  Bethsaida  and  Chorazin,  adjacent  to 
Capernaum,  and  labored  much  in  them,  though  of  these  labors 
there  is  little  or  no  mention  (Matt.  xi.  21).  His  fame  rapidly 
spread,  and  soon  the  people  from  the  regions  adjacent  to  Galilee 
began  to  gather  to  Him. 

Of  His  works  of  healing  during  the  first  circuit,  no  instance 
is  given,  unless  the  healing  of  the  leper  (Matt.  viii.  2  ;  Luke  v. 
12  ;  Mark  i.  40)  took  place  at  this  time.  Matthew  places  it 
immediately  after  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Luke  introduces 
it  with  no  mark  of  time  :  "  And  it  came  to  pass  when  He  was 
in  a  certain  city,"  etc.  Mark  connects  it  with  the  first  circuit  in 
Galilee,  but  with  no  mention  of  place.  That  this  healing  is  not 
chronologically   placed   by   Matthew,    appears   from  the  whole 


1  It  is  said  by  Schflrer,  ii.  1. 154,  that  the  New  Testament  and  Josephns  uniformly 
distinguish  between  the  two  notions,  city  or  town  —  ttoAis  —  and  village  —  Kto/nij.  Once 
the  term  (cw/aoTrdAeis  is  used,  Mark  i.  38,  meaning  towns  which  only  enjoyed  the  rank  of 
a  village.  The  village  was  in  some  way  subordinate  to  the  town,  and  the  smnller  towns 
to  the  larger.  See  Weiss,  ii.  510.  The  several  Evangelists  in  one  or  two  instances,  apply 
these  different  terms  to  the  same  place.  Thus,  Bethsaida  is  called  by  Mark  viii.  33,  33,  a, 
Koo^T);  Luke  ix.  10,  a  ttoAi?.  See  Matt.  xi.  20.  Bethany,  Bethlehem,  Bethphage,  Em- 
maus,  are  villages;  Capernaum,  Nain,  Chorazin,  Ephraim,  are  cities. 


Fart  1\ .]  RETURN  TO  CAPERNAUM.  251 

arrangement  of  chapters  viii.  and  ix.  The  first  verse  of  chapter 
viii.  more  properly  belongs  to  the  conclusion  of  the  history  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  verse  second  begins  the  narrative  of. 
healings  and  other  miracles,  of  which  ten  particular  examples 
are  successively  recorded,  but  without  regard  to  the  exact  order 
of  time  in  which  they  occurred.  After  healing  the  leper,  Jesus 
commands  him  to  go  and  show  himself  to  the  priests,  and  to 
say  nothing  to  any  one  else  of  the  miracle  (Matt,  viii  4).  This 
command  of  silence  plainly  implies  that  the  miracle  had  been 
done  privately,  and  not  in  the  presence  of  the  multitude;  and 
could  not  have  been,  therefore,  as  He  came  from  the  Mount,  for 
great  crowds  then  followed  Him.  Nor  in  the  presence  of  the 
people  could  a  leper  have  approached  Him.'  This  command  to 
keep  silence  the  leper  disobeys,  and  everywhere  publishes  abroad 
what  Jesus  had  done.  This  wonderful  cure,  for  leprosy  was 
deemed  incurable,  made  the  people  throng  to  Him  in  such 
crowds,  that  He  could  no  more  enter  into  any  city.'  It  is  said 
by  some  that  He  was  made  unclean  by  touching  the  leper,  and 
therefore  was  forbidden  to  enter  the  city  by  the  local  magistrates; 
this  is  not  probable.  He  v/as  obliged  to  retire  to  desert,  or 
uninhabited  places,  to  avoid  them  ;  but  even  then  they  gath- 
ered to  Him  from  every  quarter.  (For  the  order  in  Matthew, 
Bengel,  Quandt,  Godet;  for  an  earlier  period,  Eob.,  Gardiner, 
Caspari,  Ellicott.) 

If,  then,  the  healing  of  the  leper  be  placed  during  this  cir- 
cuit, it  was  probably  during  the  latter  part  of  it.  As  He  pro- 
ceeded from  place  to  place  He  healed  such  sick  persons  as  were 
brought  to  Him,  and  the  reports  of  these  cures  spreading  in 
every  direction,  all  in  every  city  would  be  brought  so  soon  as 
His  presence  was  known.  The  leprosy  may  have  been  one  of 
the  last  forms  of  disease  He  healed,  partly  because  of  want  of 
faith  on  the  part  of  the  lepers,  and  partly  because  it  was  difficult 
for  them,  amidst  such  crowds,  to  get  access  to  Him.  But  why 
in  this  case  should  silence  be  enjoined  ?  And  why,  after  He 
had  wrought  so  many  other  cures,  should  this  have  aroused  so 


1  Greswell,  ii.  296,  note,  infers  that  Jesus  was  in  some  house  apart  when  the  leper 
applied  to  Him,  and  that  his  cure  took  place  in  private.  Contra,  Godet:  "  A  leper  would 
hardly  have  been  able  to  make  his  way  into  a  house."    See  Eders.  i.  406,  note. 

2  Or  into  the  city,  i.  e.  Capernaum.    So  Norton.    E.  V.  "a  city." 


252  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

much  attention  as  to  make  it  necessary  for  Him  to  avoid  the 
cities,  and  go  into  uninhabited  places  ?  The  most  probable 
answer  is,  that  the  public  proclamation  of  this  miracle  gave  the 
people  such  conceptions  of  His  mighty  power  to  heal,  that  all 
thronged  to  Him  to  be  healed,  and  thus  His  teachings,  the  moral 
side  of  His  work,  were  thrust  into  the  shade.  It  was  the  word 
which  He  wished  to  make  prominent,  and  the  work  was  but 
subsidiary.  He  would  not  that  the  people  should  merely 
wonder  after  Him  as  a  miracle- worker,  but  should  learn  through 
His  words  the  true  nature  of  the  redemption  He  came  to  pro- 
claim, and  so  be  able  to  understand  His  woi'ks  as  redemptive. 

Early  Summer,  781.     A.  D.  28. 

After  some  time,  the  Lord  returns  to  Capernaum.     So    Mark   ii.   1-12. 
soon  as  it  is  known  that  He  is  returned,  the  multitudes  begin 
to  gather,  bringing  their  sick,  whom  He  heals.     The  Phari- 
sees and  doctors  of  the  law  from  all  parts  of  the  land  come    Luke  v.  17-26. 
to  Capernaum  to  see  and  hear  the  new  prophet.     A  paralytic 
is  brought  to  His  house  upon  a  bed,  whom  He  heals,  forgiv-    Matt.    ix.  2-8. 
ing  his  sins.     This  awakens  the  indignation  of  the  Phari- 
sees, who  regard  him  as  a  blasphemer.     Leaving  the  city,     Mark  ii.  13,  14. 
He  goes  to  the  seaside  and  there  teaches.     Afterward  walk-    Matt.  ix.  9. 
ing  on  the  shore,  He  sees  Levi,  the  publican,  sitting  at  the 
receipt  of  custom,  whom  He  calls  to  follow  Him.  Luke  v.  27,  28. 

^he  order  of  Mark,  who  places  the  healing  of  the  paralytic 
after  the  return  to  Capernaum,  is  plainly  the  right  one.'  Mat- 
thew in  his  grouping  of  the  miracles  iti  chapters  viii.  and  ix., 
does  not  follow  the  order  of  time.  Luke  narrates  it  after  the 
healing  of  the  leper,  but  without  specifying  time  or  place.  He 
mentions,  however,  the  fact,  that  there  were  "  Pharisees  and 
doctors  of  the  law  sitting  by,  which  were  come  out  of  every 
town  of  Galilee,  and  Judaea,  and  Jerusalem  ;  and  the  power  of 
the  Lord  was  present  to  heal  them."  (W.  and  H.,  Tisch.,  for 
dvTOvq  have  dvTov.  In  R.  V.,  "  The  power  of  the  Lord  was  with 
Him  to  heal ").  It  is  not  wholly  clear  who  these  persons  were, 
or  why  they  were  now  present.  Greswell  (ii.  298)  cites  Josephus 
to  show  that  they  were  "a  sort  of  village  schoolmasters, 
or  a  class  of  inferior  municipal  magistrates,  who   might  conse- 


1  So  Robinson,  Tischendorf,  Alford,  Greswell.    As  to  the  details  of  this  healing. 
see  Eders.  i.  502. 


Part  IV.]  THE   CALL  OF  LEVI,  253 

quently  be  met  with  everywhere. "  So  Edersheim  (i.  87)  speaks 
of  the  scribes  as  having  civil  administration  in  villages  and  town- 
ships. (As  to  the  scribes  as  teachers,  see  i.  93  fl:.).  Schiirer 
(ii.  1.  333)  describes  them  as  men  who  made  acquaintance  with 
the  law  a  profession,  and  who,  rather  than  the  priests,  were  at 
this  time  its  zealous  guardians,  and  the  real  teachers  of  the  peo- 
ple. Whether  these  are  to  be  distinguished  from  the  scribes 
who  came  down  from  Jerusalem  at  a  later  period  to  watch  Him 
(Mark  iii.  22),  is  in  dispute.  Most  suppose  them  to  have  been 
present  with  evil  intent,  but  it  is  possible  that  they  came  to  be 
healed,  or  to  see  and  hear  Him  whose  fame  had  gone  so  widely 
abroad.  There  is  no  distinction  taken  by  the  Evangelist 
between  those  from  Galilee  and  those  from  Judaea  and  Jerusa- 
lem, as  if  the  latter  were  present  from  any  special  cause.  At 
this  period  of  the  Lord's  career,  the  nature  of  His  work  was 
very  imperfectly  understood,  and  many  in  every  part  of  the  land 
and  of  every  class,  looking  for  the  Messiah,  would  be  naturally 
attracted  to  one  who  showed  such  wonderful  power  in  word  and 
deed.  But  in  a  little  time  as  His  teachings  became  more  dis- 
tinctly known,  His  disregard  of  merely  legal  righteousness, 
His  neglect  of  their  traditions.  His  high  claims,  awakened  great 
and  general  hostility.  We  see  here  how  these  scribes,  who 
came,  perhaps  hoping  to  find  in  Him  their  Messiah,  perhaps  to 
judge  by  personal  observation  how  far  the  popular  reports 
respecting  Him  were  true,  were  turned  into  enemies  and 
accusers  when  He  said  to  the  paralytic,  "Thy  sins  be  forgiven 
thee,"  which  was  to  speak  blasphemy,  because  He  assumed  a 
prerogative  which  belonged  to  God  only. 

There  are  several  allusions  to  the  Lord's  teaching  by  the 
seaside.  Whether  He  now  stood  upon  the  shore,  or  entered  a 
boat,  does  not  appear.  It  was  not,  however,  till  afterward 
(Mark  iii.  9)  that  He  commanded  that  a  small  ship  should  wait 
•on  Him.  Thomson  (i.  548)  speaks  of  the  small  creeks  or  inlets 
near  Tell  Hum, ."  where  the  ship  could  ride  in  safety  only  a  few 
feet  from  the  shore,  and  where  the  multitude,  seated  on  both 
sides,  and  before  the  boat,  could  listen  without  distraction  or 
fatigue.  As  if  on  purpose  to  furnish  seats,  tlie  shore  on  both 
sides  of  those  narrow  inlets  is  piled  up  with  smooth  boulders  of 


254  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD,  [Part  IV. 

basalt."     Others  find  a  more  convenient  place  along  the  shelv- 
ing beach  further  to  the  south. 

The  road  from  Damascus  to  the  cities  along  .^e  coast  passed 
by  "  Jacob's  bridge "  over  the  Jordan,  and  thence  along  the 
northern  shore  of  the  lake.  It  is  probable  that  the  place  of  toll, 
where  Levi  sat,  was  upon  the  road,  near  its  entrance  into  the 
city.'  The  manner  of  this  call,  like  the  call  of  Simon  and 
Andrew,  and  James  and  John  from  their  work  as  fishermen, 
presupposes  a  prior  acquaintance  of  Jesus  with  Levi.  The  tax- 
gatherer,  from  his  occupation  and  local  position,  must  have  been 
aware  of  all  that  was  taking  place  in  the  neighborhood,  and 
could  not  easily  have  been  ignorant  of  the  Lord's  person  and 
work.  Not  improbably  also,  he  was  already  a  disciple  in  the 
wider  sense  of  the  term,  this  not  involving  the  giving  up  of  his 
usual  calling.  It  would  appear  that  the  call  was  given  on  the 
same  day  in  which  Jesus  taught  the  people,  and  soon  after  His 
discourse  was  ended.  ^ 

By  some  this  call  to  Levi  is  placed  after  his  election  to  the 
Apostleship.  Having  been  already  chosen  one  of  the  Twelve, 
he  returned  to  his  ordinary  labors  ;  and  now,  they  sa)'^,  was  called 
to  enter  upon  his  apostolic  duties,  to  leave  all  and  follow  Christ. 
But  this  in  itself  is  exceedingly  improbable,  and  we  shall  soon 
see  that  the  election  to  the  apostleship  is  later. 

The  call  of  Levi  to  stand  in  such  intimate  relations  to  the 
Lord,  must  have  been  a  stumbling-block  to  all  the  Pharisaic 
party,  and  to  all  those  in  whose  hearts  national  pride  and  hatred 
of  foreign  rule  were  ardent.  The  occupation  of  the  publican 
was  odious,  if  not  in  itself  disgraceful,  as  a  sign  and  proof  of 
their  national  degradation  ;  and  the  selection  of  a  disciple  from 
this  class  to  be  His  constant  attendant,  by  one  who  claimed  to 
be  the  Messiah,  must  have  strongly  prejudiced  many  against 
Him  and  His  work.^ 

Such  selection  implies,  also,  that  already  the  Lord  was  turn- 


1  See  Lichtenstein,  aSO;  Herz.,  Encyc,  xv.  161. 

-  Bleek,  Synoptische  Erklarung,  i.  384.  As  to  the  identity  of  Matthew  and  Levi,  see 
Winer,  ii.  61;  Godet,  on  Lui^e  v.  27;  Eders.,  i.  574. 

3  "  The  Talmud,"  says  Lightfoot,  iii.  61,  hath  this  canon:  "  '  A  Pharisee  that  turns 
publican,  they  turn  him  out  of  his  order.'  "  See  Eders.,  i.  515  ft. :  "  Levi  was  not  only  a 
publican,  but  of  the  worst  kind,  a  douauier  a  custom-house  official,"  and  as  such  nioft 
obnoxious. 


Part  IV^.]  PLUCKING   THE  EARS   OF   CORN.  255 

ing  away  from  the  legally  righteous,  the  Pharisees,  because  His 
words  had  so  little  entrance  into  their  hearts;  and  was  turning  to 
those  who,  though  despised  as  publicans  and  sinners,  were  never- 
theless ready  to  receive  the  truth.  Unable  to  draw  the  priests 
into  His  service,  He  calls  fishermen  ;  and  what  He  cannot  ac- 
complish because  of  the  unbelief  of  Pharisees,  He  will  do  through 
the  faith  of  publicans. 

Many  bring  the  feast  which  Levi  made  for  the  Lord  (Luke 
V.  29  ;  see  also,  Matt.  ix.  10  ;  Mark  ii.  15)  into  immediate  con- 
nection with  his  call.'  Still  there  is  nothing  in  the  language  of 
the  Evangelists  that  implies  sequence,  and  as  Capernaum  doubt- 
less continued  to  be  Levi's  residence,  to  which  he  frequently 
returned  from  his  journeyings  with  the  Lord,  the  feast  may  with 
equal  likelihood  have  taken  place  at  a  later  time,  and  be  here 
related,  in  order  to  bring  together  all  that  concerned  him 
personally.'' 

This  point,  and  the  chronological  connection  between  this 
feast  and  the  healing  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus  (Matt.  ix.  18-25), 
will  be  examined  when  we  i-each  this  miracle. 

Greswell  (ii.  397)  attempts  to  show  that  the  feast  of  Matthew 
(Matt.  ix.  10)  was  different  from  that  mentioned  by  Mark  and 
Luke ;  that  the  first  was  later,  and  not  in  the  house  of  Levi  ; 
and  that  at  this  feast,  only  the  disciples  of  John  were  present. 
This  view  removes  some  difficulties,  but  the  arguments  in  its 
favor  are  more  ingenious  than  convincing. 

Early  Summer,  781.     A.  D.  28. 

During  this  sojourn  in  Capernaum,  the  Lord  with  His    Matt.  xii.  1-8. 
disciples  walks  through  the  fields  upon  a  Sabbath,  and    Mark  ii.  23-28. 
plucks  and  eats  the  ears  of  corn.     This  is  observed  by    Luke  vi.  1-5. 
some  of  the  Pharisees  who  are  watching  Him,  and  who 
complain  of  it  to  Him  as  a  violation  of  the  Sabbath.     He 
answers  them  by  referring  to  what  David  did,  and  asserts 
His  power  as  Son  of  man  over  the  Sabbath.     Upon  an-    Luke  vi.  6-11. 
other   Sabbath  He  heals  a  man  with   a  withered  hand.     Matt.  xii.  9-14. 
which  leads  the  Pharisees  to  conspire  with  the  Herodians    Mark  iii.  1-6. 
to  destroy  Him. 


1  Lichtenstein,  Tischendorf,  Stier,  Godet,  Caspar!. 

2  So  Lightfoot,  Newcome,  Townsend,  Robinson.  Newcome  (259)  refers  to  the  Har. 
mony  of  Chemnitius,  "  where  it  appears  that  Levi's  call  and  feast  were  separated  in  the 
jnost  ancient  harmonies  from  Tatian,  A.  D.  170  to  Gerson,  A.  D.  1400." 


256  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  IV 

Both  the  time  and  place  of  this  event  —  the  plucking  of  the 
ears  of  corn  —  have  been  much  disputed ;  and  both  are  there- 
fore to  be  considered.  It  is  mentioned  by  all  the  Synoptists, 
by  Matthew  in  one  connection,  by  Mark  and  Luke  in  another, 
but  by  none  in  such  a  way  as  to  determine  its  place,  or  its 
chronological  position.  Its  importance  in  this  respect  makes  it 
necessary  that  we  give  it  a  careful  examination. 

All  agree  that  it  took  place  ou  a  Sabbath,  and  Luke  (vi.  1)  defines 
this  Sabbath  as  "the  second  Sabbath  after  the  first,"  or  "second- 
first  —  if  ffa^^dTtj}  devTepoTrptbTip.  But  what  was  this  second-first  Sab- 
bath ?  The  first  point  is  as  to  the  true  reading.  Many,  on  various 
grounds,  omit  the  adjective.  (So  Meyer,  W.  and  H.,  Bleek;  Weiss 
regards  the  text  as  corrupted;  Riddle,  that  a  marginal  note  has  found 
its  way  into  the  text.  Retained  by  Tisch.,  Winer,  Wies.,  Ellicott, 
Keil,  McClel.,  Eders.) 

If  rejected  as  not  genuine,  the  text  will  read:  "And  it  came  to 
pass  on  a  Sabbath  that  He  was  going  through  the  cornfields."  (So 
R.  V.)  In  this  case  the  only  clew  to  the  time  of  the  year  is  the  fact, 
that  "the  disciples  plucked  the  ears  of  corn  and  did  eat."  The 
grain,  therefore,  was  ripe,  and  from  this  we  may  infer  that  it  could 
not  have  been  earlier  than  the  time  set  for  the  reaping  of  the  barley 
harvest,  for  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  sheaf  of  first-fruits 
offered  at  the  Passover  (Levit.  xxiii.  10),  and  before  which  no  grain 
was  reaped,  was  of  barley ;  but  whether  the  barley  is  here  meant  is  in 
question.  It  is  said  by  Lightfoot  (on  Matthew  xii.  1):  "  Barley  was 
sown  at  the  coming  in  of  winter,  and  when  the  Passover  came  in,  be- 
came ripe,  so  that  from  that  time  barley-liarvest  took  its  beginning." 
The  wheat  harvest  was  later,  and  not  gatliered  till  May  or  June. 
Robinson  speaks  of  seeing  wheat  ripe  upon  the  9th  of  3Iay,  and  he 
also  speaks  of  the  people  near  Tiberias  as  engaged  in  gathering  the 
wheat  harvest  upon  the  19th  of  June.  The  uncertainty  as  to  the  kind 
of  grain  gathered  by  the  disciples,  whether  wheat  or  barley;  and  also 
as  to  the  place,  whether  in  Judaea  or  Galilee,  on  the  highlands  or  low- 
lands, permits  us  to  put  this  event  either  in  April,  or  May,  or  June. 
The  field  was  not  yet  reaped,  but  it  was  not  unusual  to  let  the  grain 
remain  in  the  field  some  time  after  ripening.  Thomson  says  that  the 
Syrian  harvest  extends  through  several  months,  and  "the  wheat  is  suf 
fered  to  become  dead  ripe,  and  as  dry  as  tinder  before  it  is  cut." 
Even  if,  in  the  case  before  us,  the  harvest  generally  was  reaped,  this 
particular  field  may  still  have  been  ungathered;  or  possibly  this  grain 
had  been  left  for  gleaners. 

Cut  if  we  accept  the  reading,  "second-first,"  wluit  v.as  tlic  Sab- 


Part  IV.]  PLUCKING  THE   EARS   OF   CORN.  257 

bath  so  distinguished?  As  no  other  writer  uses  this  designation,  shall 
we  say  that  it  was  invented  by  Luke?  This  is  not  likely;  we  may 
rather  suppose  that  it  was  a  technical  term,  the  meaning  of  wliich  he 
supposed  his  readers  to  be  acquainted  with.  But  its  meaning  is  not 
plain.  There  are  two  suppositions :  "  second  "  may  be  understood  as 
defining  "first ;"  there  being  two  or  more  first  Sabbaths,  of  which  one  is 
marked  out  as  the  second.  ("The  second  of  two  firsts"  Meyer.) 
Or  "second"  may  be  understood  as  marking  some  well-defined  Sab- 
bath, from  which  second  SaVjbath  others  are  counted;  the  first  after 
the  second,  the  second  after  the  second,  the  third  after  the  second, 
etc.     (So  Campbell  and  JSTorton  in  their  translations;  Rob.,  Gres.) 

If  we  adopt  the  first  su])position,  there  must  be  a  class  of  two  or 
more  first-Sabbaths  which  can  be  numerically  distinguished ;  and  we 
must  ask  after  the  several  classes  of  first-Sabbaths  which  have  been 
proposed. 

1.  1.  That  which  takes  a  cycle  of  seven  years  from  the  end  of 
one  Sabbatic  year  to  another,  the  year  commencing  at  Nisan  or  April ; 
of  these  seven  yearly  first-Sabbaths  the  first  Sabbath  of  the  second 
year  is  the  second-first.  But  if,  as  is  generally  agreed,  the  Sabbatic 
year  began  in  October  not  in  April,  this  would  bring  the  secpnd-first 
Sabbath  into  the  Autumn.     (See  Winer,  ii.   348;  Wies.,   Syn.,  204.) 

2.  That  which,  dividing  the  year  into  two  parts,  the  ecclesiastical 
and  the  civil,  the  one  beginning  with  Nisan  (April)  the  other  with  Tizri 
(October)  finds  two  yearly  first-Sabbaths,  the  first-first  in  Tizri,  the 
second-first  in  Nisan ;  or  this  order  may  be  reversed  if  we  begin  the 
year  with  Nisan. 

3.  That  which,  dividing  the  year  into  twelve  months,  finds 
twelve  first-Sabbaths,  or  the  first  Sabbath  of  each  month.  The 
second-first  is  the  first  Sabbath  of  the  second  month.  If  Nisan 
(April)  be  the  first  month,  Ijar  (May)  is  the  second  mouth. 

4.  That  which  finds  a  class  of  first-Sabbaths  marked  out  by  the 
three  great  feasts,  Passover,  Pentecost,  and  Tabernacles.  Of  these 
that  of  Pentecost  would  be  the  second-first. 

5.  That  which  takes  a  cycle  of  seven  weeks  from  the  second  day 
of  the  Passover,  which  was  a  Sabbatic  day,  to  Pentecost ;  the  Sabbaths 
of  these  seven  weeks  making  a  class  of  first  Sabbaths,  the  second  of 
which  is  the  second-first. 

II.  If  we  take  the  second  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
"second-first,"  that  it  is  the  first  after  a  second,  we  have  two  chief 
explanations: 

1.  The  second  day  of  the  Passover  (Levit.  xxiii.  10)  is  selected 
as  the  starting-point  from  which  the  Sabbaths  are  counted  to  Pente- 


258  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

cost;  the  first  Sabbath  after  this  second  day  being  the  second-first, 
and  in  like  order. 

2.  The  fifteenth  and  twenty-first  days  of  Nisan  being  feast 
Sabbaths,  if  a  week  Sabbath  came  between  them,  it  was  called  the 
second-first. 

Still  another  solution  has  been  proposed.  The  first  day  of  a  new 
month  being  determined  by  the  appearance  of  the  new  moon,  when 
this  could  not  be  ascertained,  the  day  was  counted  as  the  30th  of 
the  old  month,  and  the  next  day  as  the  commencement  of  the  new. 
In  this  case  both  days  were  sanctified,  and  the  first  called  the  first 
Sabbath,  and  the  second  the  second-first. 

With  the  uncertainty  as  to  the  right  reading,  and  the  multiplicity 
of  interpretations,  it  is  obvious  that  the  designation  of  this  Sabbath 
as  the  second-first  gives  no  certain  chronological  datum. 

It  is  a  valid  objection  to  some  of  them  that  they  bring  the  pluck- 
ing of  the  corn  too  early,  before  the  offering  of  the  wave  sheaf,  and  so 
before  the  legal  time.  To  others  it  may  be  objected  that  they  are 
merely  ingenious  conjectures,  sustained  by  no  proof.  That  which 
has  the  larger  number  of  names  in  its  favor  is  that  which  is  said  to 
have  been  originally  propounded  by  Scaliger,  and  maintained  by  Light- 
foot  (in  loco,  also  on  Matt.  xii.  1).  "It  was  the  first  Sabbath  after 
the  second  day  of  the  Passover."  If  the  Passover  this  year  began  on 
March  30,  the  plucking  of  the  corn  was  early  in  April.  Others  pre- 
fer the  view  which  regards  the  second-first  Sabbath  as  the  first  after 
the  second  of  the  three  great  feasts,  that  after  the  Passover  being  tlie 
first-first,  and  that  after  Pentecost,  the  second-first.  In  like  manner 
we  have  in  common  use  the  designations,  the  first  Sunday  after 
Epiphany,  first  after  Easter,  and  the  like.  Brown  (657)  remarks: 
"  Of  all  the  explanations  known  to  me,  this  seems  the  best,  indeed, 
the  only  likely  one."  Clinton  calls  it  "equally  probable"  as  the 
first  mentioned.  But  eminent  names  can  be  cited  for  other  inter- 
pretations. (For  a  brief  statement  of  opinions,  see  Winer,  ii.  348j 
Greswell,  ii.  800;  Meyer  and  Godet,  in  loco.) 

The  bearing  of  this  incident  on  the  point  of  the  length  of  the 
Lord's  public  ministry,  is  to  be  noted.  It  is  held  by  those  who  affirm 
that  there  were  but  three  Passovers,  and  consequently  that  it  contin- 
ued but  little  more  than  two  years,  that  the  ])lucking  of  the  corn  must 
have  been  just  after  the  Passover  mentioned  in  John  vi.  4,  the  second 
one.  If  so,  it  must  have  been  just  at  the  close  of  the  Galilaean  minis- 
try. It  is  said  by  Edersheim  (ii.  54)  that  it  was  just  before  the  feed- 
ing of  the  four  thousand;  and  if  so,  the  whole  Juda?an  and  Galilaean 
ministries  mtist  be  compressed  within  a  period  of  little  more  than  a 
year,  leaving  nearly  a  year  for  His  last  joniney  from  Galilee  to  Jeru- 
salem.    This  statement  is  its  owu  condenuiatiou. 


Part  IV.]   HEALING  THE  MAN  WITH  A  WITHERED  HAND.  259 

In  this  chaos  of  interpretations,  the  mention  of  this  Sabbath 
as  the  second-first  gives  us  no  certain  chronological  aid.  The 
circumstance,  however,  that  the  disciples  plucked  the  ears  of 
corn  and  did  eat,  defines  tlie  season  of  the  year  as  that  when  the 
com  was  ripe.  The  kind  of  grain  is  not  mentioned,  whether 
barley  which  is  earliest,  or  wheat  which  was  later.  Many 
have  assumed,  with  Lightfoot,  that  this  corn  was  barley,  but 
this  is  not  easily  rubbed  in  the  hands,  and  it  was  the  food  of  the 
very  poor,  and  of  horses.  Though  the  disciples  may  have  eaten 
it  in  their  hunger,  yet  wheat  is  the  more  probable  grain.  But 
if  it  were  barley,  the  Passover  of  the  year  beginning  on  the  30tli 
March,  the  barley  harvest  would  begin  about  the  1st  April,  and 
continue  till  May  or  later.  If  the  corn  was  wheat,  the  harvest 
would  begin  some  weeks  later,  and  many  fields  may  have  re- 
mained unreaped  as  late  as  June,  much  depending  on  the  posi- 
tion of  the  field  as  to  latitude  and  elevation. 

Thus  no  definite  chronological  datum  can  be  obtained  in  this 
way.  We  have  only  the  general  result  that  the  plucking  of  the 
corn  may  have  been  in  April  or  May  or  June.  If  we  regard 
this  second -first  Sabbath  as  the  first  after  Pentecost,  which  was 
on  this  year  the  19th  May,  we  must  put  the  event  about  the 
end  of  this  month.  If  this  be  correct,  the  ministry  of  the  Lord 
in  Galilee  had  now  continued  about  two  months. 

Where  did  this  event  take  place  ?  It  is  narrated  by  all  the 
Synoptists  as  occurring  just  before  the  healing  of  the  man  with 
the  withered  hand,  and  this  healing  was  probably  in  the  syna- 
gogue at  Capernaum.  'And  He  entered  again  iuto  the  syna- 
gogue" (Mark  iii.  1),  that  is,  the  synagogue  already  mentioned.' 
The  article  is  omitted  by  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.,  and  others,  yet 
if  rendered  "into  a  synagogue,"  the  reference  would  not  neces- 
sarily be  to  i.  39,  "  And  He  preached  in  their  synagogues  through- 
out all  Galilee,"  but  rather  to  i.  21,  where  the  synagogue  at 
Capernaum  is  mentioned.  This  appears  also  from  the  mention 
of  His  withdrawal  to  the  sea  after  the  healing  (Mark  iii.  7  ;  see 
also  Luke  vi.  6).  That  the  field  where  the  ears  were  plucked 
was  not  far  distant  from  Capernaum,  appears  from  Matthew  xii. 
9,  for  the  Pharisees  who  had  blamed  the  disciples  for  that  act. 


'Alexander,  Meyer. 


^GO  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

are  spoken  of  as  members  of  that  synagogue.  "  He  went  into 
their  synagogue."  '  They  were,  therefore,  the  Pharisees  of 
Capernaum,  and  the  field  of  corn  was  in  the  neighlDorhood  of 
that  city,  and  within  the  limits  of  a  Sabbath  day's  journey. 

We  may,  then,  give  the  following  order  of  events  as  one 
intrinsically  probable.  The  Lord,  after  His  return  from  His  first 
circuit,  remained  some  days  or  weeks  at  Capernaum,  and  upon  a 
Sabbath  walked  out  with  His  disciples  through  the  fields  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  city.  As  He  had  already,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Pharisees,  broken  the  sanctity  of  the  Sabbath  by  healing  upon  it 
(Mark  i.  23  and  30),  they  followed  Him  to  watch  Him,  perhaps  to 
note  whether  His  walk  upon  that  day  was  longer  than  the  law 
permitted  (Acts  i.  12).  Seeing  His  disciples  plucking  and  rub- 
bing the  ears  of  corn  in  their  hands,  they  saw  in  the  act  a  viola- 
tion of  the  law.  It  has  sometimes  been  said  that  the  Pharisees 
did  not  think  it  sinful  to  pull  and  eat  the  grain,  but  it  was  so  to 
rub  it  in  their  hands,  all  preparation  of  food  being  forbidden. 
This  is  doubtful.  Lightfoot  says:  "The  plucking  of  ears  of 
corn  on  the  Sabbath  was  forbidden  by  their  canons,  verbaiim  : 
'  He  that  reapeth  corn  on  the  Sabbath,  to  the  quantity  of  a  fig,  is 
guilty.  And  plucking  corn  is  as  reaping.' "  ^  It  is  said  by 
Edersheim  (ii.  56)  that  the  act  involved  two  sins,  —  first,  thai 
of  plucking  the  ears;  second,  that  of  rubbing  them.  If  done  pre- 
sumptuously, or  without  necessity,  the  punishment  was  death  by 
stoning,  and  hence  the  Lord's  defense  of  the  disciples.  His  an- 
swer to  their  complaints  could  only  have  angered  them  still  more, 
and  when,  therefore,  He  entered  the  following  Sabbath  into 
the  synagogue  (Luke  vi.  6),  it  was  to  be  expected  that  they 
would  carefully  watch  all  that  He  did  to  find  some  suflBcient 
ground  of  accusation  against  Him.  His  renewed  violation  of 
the  Sabbath  by  healing  the  man  with  a  withered  hand,  added 
to  their  indignation,  and  they  now  began  to  plot  how  they  might 
destroy  Him. 

Luke  (vi.  6)  defines  the  time  of  this  work  of  healing  as  "on 
another  Sabbath."     That  this  was  the  Sabbath  immediately  fol- 


1  Meyer,  Norton.  But  others  do  not  accept  this;  wo  Kcil.  DoWctto:  "Ihc  people 
of  the  place  where  He  then  was." 

"  See  also  Meyer  on  Matt.  xii.  1;  and  Eders.,  ii.  50  II.,  and  as  to  Rabbinical  Sabbath 
law,  App.,  xvii. 


Part   IV.]  HEALING  THE  MAN  WITH  A  WITHERED  HAND.  261 

lowing  that  on  which  He  walked  through  the  corn-field,  is  not 
said,  though  it  may  have  been.'  The  alliance  of  the  Herodians 
with  the  Pharisees  does  not  prove  that  Herod  himself  had  at 
this  time  any  knowledge  of  Jesus,  or  took  any  steps  against 
Him.  The  Herodians  were  those  among  the  people  who,  though 
hating  the  Roman  rule,  favored  the  pretensions  of  Herod's 
family  to  kingly  power  (Lindsay,  on  Mark  iii.  6).  In  case  of 
national  independence,  this  family  should  reign  rather  than  the 
house  of  the  Maccabees,  or  any  other  claimant.  They  were 
never  numerous,  for  the  great  body  of  the  nation  looked  upon 
that  family  as  foreigners  and  usurpers.  "  Why  the  Pharisees 
and  Herodians,"  says  Alford,  "should  now  combine,  is  not 
apparent."  The  Herodians  would,  however,  be  naturally  jealous 
and  watchful  of  any  one  whom  they  supposed  to  put  forth 
any  Messianic  pretensions;  and  the  Pharisees  being  angry  at 
Jesus  on  religious  grounds,  yet  unable  to  take  any  measures 
against  Him  without  the  assent  of  Herod,  a  union  of  the 
two  for  His  destruction  was  very  easily  made.  Indeed,  the 
Herodians  may  have  been  themselves  of  the  Pharisaic  party. 
We  need  not  suppose  that  this  conspiracy  against  Him  as  yet 
included  others  than  the  Pharisees  and  Herodians  of  Capernaum 
and  its  immediate  vicinity  (see  Matt.  xii.  14  ;  Mark  iii.  6), 
and  seems  to  have  been  the  beginning  of  the  organized  hostility 
to  Him  in  Galilee.  Doubtless,  very  soon  after  this,  His  enemies 
here  took  counsel  with  His  enemies  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  con- 
spiracy against  Him  became  general. 

It  appears  from  these  narratives  that,  almost  from  the  very 
beginning  of  His  Galilsean  work,  the  Lord  encountered  the  active 
hostility  of  the  Pharisees  of  that  province.  The  grounds  of  offense 
may  be  stated  in  general  terms:  1st,  that  He  disregarded  their 
traditions  in  not  a  few  points,  as  in  fasting,  in  purifications  ;  2d, 
He  associated  with  publicans  and  sinners  ;  3d,  He  broke  the  Sab- 
bath ;  4th,  He  assumed  the  right  to  forgive  sins.  Of  these,  the 
breaking  of  the  Sabbath  and  forgiveness  of  sins  were  the  most 
offensive.     At  the  feast  (John  v.  1),  He  had  aroused  the  anger 


1  Wieseler  (237)  conjectures  that  it  was  a  feast  Sabbath,  and  the  day  following  that 
mentioned  in  verse  1st.  This  seems  to  have  little  or  no  irrnnnd  for  it.  Meyer's  assertion, 
that  Matthew  (xii.  9)  puts  the  two  events  on  the  same  Sabbath  in  opposition  to  Luke,  lias 
no  sufticient  basis.    See  Keil,  in  loco. 


263  THE  Life  op  our  lord.  [Part  IV. 

cf  the  Pharisees  at  Jerusalem  by  healing  the  impotent  man  on 
the  Sabbath  (verses  16  and  18)  ;  and  at  Capernaum  He  con- 
tinued again  and  again  to  heal  upon  that  day,  and  in  the  syna- 
gague  itself.'  Their  fanatical  zeal  qould  not  allow  such  viola- 
tions of  the  law  to  pass  unnoticed,  and  as  Jesus  defended  them  on 
the  ground  of  His  divine  right  to  work,  even  on  the  Sabbath, 
He  seemed  to  them  not  only  a  Sabbath-breaker,  but  also  a 
blasphemer.  At  first  they  plotted  secretly  against  Him,  the  peo- 
ple at  large  being  friendly  to  Him.  While  in  the  full  flush  of 
His  popularity,  they  dared  take  no  steps  openly  against  Him,  but 
waited  till  some  imprudence,  or  error,  or  folly  on  His  part, 
or  the  fickleness  of  the  multitude,  might  put  Him  in  their 
power.  There  was  early  an  active  and  constant  correspondence 
between  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  in  Galilee  and  those  in 
Jerusalem  ;  and  at  intervals  deputations  from  the  latter  came 
down  to  consult  with  the  former,  and  to  devise  means  to  hinder 
Him  in  His  work,  and  to  bring  Him  to  punishment.  As 
yet  the  fact  that  He  had  broken  the  Sabbath  by  healing  upon  it, 
does  not  seem  to  have  turned  the  popular  feeling  at  all  against 
Him,  nor  even  the  assertion  of  His  power  to  forgive  sins.  This 
was  doubtless  due  to  His  many  miracles  of  heahng,  which  for  a 
time  repressed  all  open  attempts  against  Him. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  we  may  properly  consider  a  most  im- 
portant feature  of  the  Gahlsean  ministry, — the  many  miracles 
of  the  Lord.  On  this  first  Sabbath  in  Capernaum  He  healed  in 
the  synagogue  a  man  possessed  of  a  devil,  then  the  mother-in- 
law  of  Peter,  and,  after  the  sun  was  set,  all  in  the  city  who  came 
to  be  healed  (Matt.  viii.  16).  The  same  is  said  by  Mark  (i.  32  ff.), 
and  by  Luke  (iv.  40):  "Now  when  the  sun  was  setting,  all  they 
that  had  any  sick  with  divers  diseases  brought  them  unto  Him  ; 
and  He  laid  His  hands  on  every  one  of  them,  and  healed  them ;  and 
devils  also  came  out  of  many."  And  this  universality  of  healing 
was  not  confined  to  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  or  to  any  one 
place.  It  is  said  by  Matthew  (iv.  23)  that  ''Jesus  went  about 
all  Galilee,  .  .  .  healing  all  manner  of  sickness  and  all 
manner  of  disease  among  the  people."     And  this  is  often  re- 


1  There  are  seven  recorded  cases  of  healing  on  the  Sabbath,  and  a  general  intima 
tion  of  many  more.    (Mark  i.  34.    See  Trench,  Mir.,  250.) 


Part  IV.J  HEALING  THE  SICK.  263 

peated  (ix.  35;  xii.  15;  xiv.  14;  xv.  30;  xix.  2;  xxi.  14; 
Mark  iii.  10;  Luke  v.  15;  vi.  17  ff.;  vii.  21). 

Not  only  did  the  Lord  heal  all  who  came  to  Him,  but  He 
gave  also  like  power  to  heal  to  His  disciples  when  He  sent  them 
forth  as  His  witnesses.  Thus  it  is  said  by  Matthew  (x.  1): 
'<  When  He  had  called  unto  Him  His  twelve  disciples,  He  gave 
them  power  against  unclean  spirits,  to  cast  them  out,  and  to  heal 
all  manner  of  sickness  and  all  manner  of  disease."  (See  Mark 
iii.  15;  Luke  ix.  1.)  And  when  the  Seventy  were  sent  forth, 
they  were  empowered  to  heal  the  sick  in  every  city  that  received 
them.     (Luke  x.  9,) 

Let  us  inquire  as  to  the  significance  of  this  plenitude  of 
miracles  during  the  Galilsean  ministry. 

A  miracle  may  be  wrought  by  any  one  sent  of  God  with  a 
message  or  to  do  a  work,  as  a  credential  —  a  means  to  beget 
faith  ;  or  in  answer  to  a  special  request  springing  from  faith; 
or  as  a  necessary  element  in  the  work  to  be  done.  Thus  in  the 
case  of  Moses  (Ex.  iv.  1-9),  certain  signs  were  wrought  by  him 
before  the  people  as  his  credentials,  proofs  that  God  had  sent 
him.  Afterward  he  did  many  miracles,  at  the  Red  Sea  and  in 
the  wilderness,  not  as  credentials,  but  in  the  prosecution  of  His 
work  of  delivering  the  people  from  their  bondage. 

In  the  case  of  the  Lord,  the  signs  wrought  by  Him  at 
Jerusalem  before  the  rulers  and  people  (John  ii.  23)  did  not  be- 
get faith.  He,  therefore,  went  into  Galilee  "preaching  the  gos- 
pel of  the  kingdom  of  God."  And  it  is  in  the  connection  of  this 
preaching  of  the  kingdom  with  the  healing  of  all  the  sick,  that 
we  find  the  key  to  this  wonderful  miraculous  activity.  His 
miracles  in  Galilee  were  not  wrought  as  credentials,  though  they 
were  such,  nor  were  they,  for  the  most  part,  in  answer  to 
prayers  of  faith  ;  they  were  proofs,  outward  and  visible  to  all, 
of  the  presence  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  He  was  the  Redeemer, 
and  His  whole  work  was  redemptive  —  a  prefiguration  of  what 
should  be  when  redemption  was  completed.  He  did  not  simply 
proclaim  a  coming  kingdom,  but  showed  it  to  be  now  present, 
in  that  devils  were  cast  out  and  the  sick  liealed.  He  said  on 
one  occasion  to  the  Pharisees  :  "  If  I  by  the  Spirit  of  God  cast  out 
devils,  then  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  come  unto  you  "  (Matt.  xii. 


2G4:  THE   LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [I'art  IV. 

28  ;  Luke  xi.  20).  This  supremacy  over  evil,  mauifested,  as  was 
necessarily  the  case,  in  external  forms,  was  to  all,  who  knew 
the  relation  of  sin  to  death,  of  moral  to  physical  disorder,  the 
sure  proof  that  He  was  the  healer  of  the  soul  as  well  as  the 
body;  that  He  came  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil,  and  to 
teach  the  truth,  and  to  show  forth  the  righteousness  of  God. 

That  this  readiness  to  heal  all  who  came  to  Him  should 
have  gathered  great  multitudes  around  Him,  was  to  be  expected. 
He  did  not  demand  of  them  individual  faith  as  a  condition  of 
heaHng,  and  we  know  from  the  result  that  in  most  cases  faith 
in  Him  did  not  follow.  But  His  work,  while  it  testified  that 
He  was  the  Kmg,  and  that  the  kingdom  was  present  in  His 
Person,  answered  another  purpose.  It  enabled  Him  to  find 
those  among  the  multitudes  who  felt  the  burden  of  sin  and 
longed  for  spiritual  deliverance,  and  came  to  Him  that  they 
might  have  life  ;  and  from  these  were  His  true  disciples 
gathered. 

But  the  question  may  be  asked,  Why  did  not  the  Lord  begin 
His  ministry  in  Ju.d8ea  with  such  general  heaUng  ?  WotQd  it 
not  have  been  to  all  the  strongest  confirmatory  evidence  that  He 
was  the  Messiah  ?  A  little  reflection  will  show  us  that  such  a 
putting  forth  of  healing  power  would  have  been  quite  incon- 
sistent with  His  purpose  in  the  first  stage  of  His  ministry. 
Had  He  then  done  this,  the  holy  city  would  have  been  crowded 
by  multitudes  from  every  part  of  the  land,  and  from  all  Syria; 
and  the  tumult  and  excitement  consequent  would  have  been 
destructive  of  that  calm  self-examination  and  searching  of  heart, 
and  study  of  the  Scriptures,  which  He  sought  to  effect  in  the 
rulers.  For  this  the  quiet  of  His  baptismal  work,  a  work  call- 
ing for  repentance  and  confession  of  sin,  was  best  fitted.  It 
was  not  the  mere  number  of  His  miracles  that  was  to  decide 
whether  He  was  sent  of  God;  and  to  multiply  them  as  proofs 
before  those  who  had  no  real  discernment  of  their  nature  and 
purpose,  and  might  ascribe  them  to  demons,  could  only  have 
afforded  new  occasions  for  dispute  and  strife.  To  those  who  sat 
in  Moses'  seat  He  must  first  show  that  Moses  wrote  of  Him. 


Matt. 

xii 

i.  15-21. 

Mark 

iii. 

.  7-12. 

Matt. 

iv 

.25. 

Luke 

vi. 

12-16. 

Mark 

iii. 

13-19. 

Matt. 

v., 

vi.,  vii. 

Luke  vi. 

17-49. 

Part  IV.]      JESUS   WITHDRAWS   TO   THE   SEA-SHORE.  26? 

Midsummer,  781.    A.  D.  28. 

After  healing  tlie  man  with  a  withered  hand,  Jesus 
withdraws  to  the  seashore.  Here  great  multitudes  from 
all  parts  of  the  land  resort  to  Him,  and  He  heals  many. 
As  they  press  upon  Him  to  touch  Him,  He  directs  that 
a  small  ship  be  prepared  to  wait  upon  Him.  Leaving 
the  seaside.  He  goes  up  into  a  neighboring  mountain  and 
spends  the  night  in  prayer.  In  the  morning  He  calls  the 
disciples  to  Him,  and  from  them  chooses  the  twelve 
Apostles.  The  multitudes  now  gathering  to  Him,  He  pro- 
ceeds to  deliver  the  discourse  called  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount. 

From  Matthew  (xii.  15)  it  would  appear  that  Jesus  was 
aware  of  the  purpose  of  the  Pharisees,  and  therefore  avoided 
them.  He  would  not,  except  so  far  as  was  necessary,  come  into 
collision  with  them,  or  expose  His  work  to  injury  through  their 
opposition.  It  was  for  this  reason  that,  having  healed  all  the 
sick  among  the  multitudes  that  followed  Him,  He  charged  them 
that  they  should  not  make  Him  known  (verse  16).  He  was  now 
seeking  for  the  humble  and  repentant,  all  in  whom  He  could 
discern  any  sense  of  sin  or  germs  of  faith,  and  He  would  not  for 
their  sakes  suffer  Himself  to  be  forced  into  a  hostile  attitude  to 
the  spiritual  leaders  of  the  people.  This  was  the  rule  of  His 
conduct,  as  it  had  been  prophetically  laid  down  by  the  prophet 
Isaiah  (xlii.  2)  :  "He  shall  not  cry,  nor  lift  up,  nor  cause  His 
voice  to  be  heard  in  the  street." 

The  withdrawal  from  the  city  to  the  seashore  (Mark  iii.  7), 
while  it  thus  had  for  one  end,  to  avoid  His  enemies,  seems  also  to 
have  been  to  find  a  more  convenient  place  for  teaching  and  healing. 
In  the  city,  He  was  exposed  to  constant  interruption  through  the 
eagerness  of  the  sick  and  their  friends,  who  pressed  upon  Him 
to  touch  Him;  and  when  at  the  seaside,  to  secure  personal  free- 
dom He  was  compelled  to  order  a  boat  to  attend  upon  Him, 
that  He  might,  when  necessary,  use  it  as  a  pulpit  to  address  the 
multitude  standing  before  Him  on  the  shore,  and  perhaps  also 
withdraw  Himself  wholly  from  them  by  crossing  the  lake. 

The  fame  of  Jesus  seems  at  this  time  to  have  reached  every 

part  of  the  land.     Crowds  came,   not  only  from    Galilee    and 

Judffia,  but  also  from  Idumasa  and  from  beyond  Jordan,  and 

from  the  territories  about  Tyre  and  Sidon.     That  so  great  num- 

12 


M6  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORB.  [Part  IV. 

bers,  and  from  such  remote  regions,  should  gather  at  Capernaum, 
shows  that  He  remained  jit  that  city  for  some  time  after  His  re- 
turn from  His  first  circuit.  It  was,  doubtless,  not  his  teachings 
but  His  miracles  of  healing,  that  -awakened  such  general  atten- 
tion, and  drew  such  multitudes  after  Him.  Most  came  attracted 
by  His  reputation  as  a  healer  of  the  sick.  After  making  all 
allowance  for  the  degraded  condition  of  the  present  inhabitants 
of  Palestine,  the  following  remarks  of  Thomson  (ii.  84)  would 
not  be  inapplicable  to  the  Jews  of  the  Lord's  day  :  "  Should  a 
prophet  now  arise  with  a  tithe  of  the  celebrity  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  there  would  quickly  be  immense  assemblies  about 
him  from  Galilee,  and  from  Decapolis,  and  from  Jerusalem,  and 
from  Judgea,  and  from  beyond  Jordan.  Bad  and  stupid  and 
ignorant  and  worldly  as  the  people  are,  their  attention  would 
be  instantly  arrested  by  the  name  of  a  prophet,  and  they  would 
flock  from  all  parts  to  see,  hear,  and  be  healed.  There  is  an 
irresistible  bias  in  Orientals  of  all  religions  to  run  after  the  mere 
shadow  of  a  prophet,  or  a  miracle  worker." 

That  the  choice  of  the  Twelve  took  place  at  this  time,  appears 
from  the  mention  in  Mark  and  Luke  of  the  various  parts  of  the 
country  from  which  the  multitudes  came.  According  to  Luke 
(vi.  17),  they  that  heard  the  discourse  upon  the  mount  were 
from  Judaea  and  Jerusalem,  and  from  the  sea-coast  of  Tyre  and 
Sidon.  Mark  (iii.  7,  8)  mentions  Galilee,  Judaea,  Jerusalem, 
Idumsea,  beyond  Jordan,  and  about  Tyre  and  Sidon.  Matthew 
(iv.  25),  who  does  not  mention  the  choice  of  the  Apostles,  but 
gives  the  sermon  on  the  Mount,  speaks  of  the  great  multitudes 
that  followed  Him  from  Galilee,  Decapolis,  Jerusalem,  Judaea, 
and  beyond  Jordan.  It  was  at  this  point,  when  He  had  special 
need  of  their  services,  that  He  selected  twelve  out  of  the  body  of 
His  disciples  whom  He  named  Apostles.  The  importance  of  this 
act  demands  our  consideration. 

As  has  been  ah-eady  said,  the  choice  of  the  Twelve  had  a  twofold 
aspect ;  it  looked  both  to  the  present,  aud  to  the  future.  They  were 
chosen,  as  said  by  Mark  (iii.  14),  "that  they  should  be  with  Him, 
and  that  He  might  send  them  forth  to  preach."  They  were  to  be  His 
present  helpers  in  proclaiming  the  Icingdom  of  God,  thus  calling  the 
attention  of  their  countrymen  to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  But  their  work 
had  its  chief  significance,  as  the  result  showed,  not  in  their  present  wit- 


Part   TV.]  THE   CHOICE   OP  THE   TWELVE.  26^ 

ness  but  iu  their  relation  to  the  new  election,  tlie  Church,  of  which 
they  were  to  be  the  foundation.  Their  choice  at  this  time  did  not, 
however,  show  that  the  Lord  had  cast  oflf  the  Jews,  but  rather  that 
He  would,  if  it  were  possible,  save  them;  and  to  this  end  the 
Apostles  were  to  go  forth  among  the  people  at  large,  and  give  the 
utmost  publicity  to  His  mission.  But  to  do  this  they  must  first  them- 
selves be  instructed  as  to  His  Person  and  mission;  and  therefore 
must  be  with  Him  iu  daily  intercourse,  not  only  to  behold  His  works 
and  hear  His  words  in  public,  but  also  to  be  taught  of  Him  in 
private. 

On  what  grounds  the  Lord  made  this  choice  just  at  this  time,  we 
are  not  told.  It  may  be  that  not  till  now  did  He  find  among  the 
disciples  those  whom  He  judged  to  be  fit  for  this  work;  or  that  the 
concourse  of  the  people  from  all  quarters  was  now  so  great  that  their 
assistance  was  needed ;  or  that  He  saw  that  the  efforts  of  His  enemies 
would  soon  bring  His  labors  in  Galilee  to  an  end. 

Without  entering  into  disputed  points  as  to  the  names  and  relation- 
ships of  the  several  apostles,  we  may  here  note  some  particulars 
respecting  their  previous  acquaintance  with  the  Lord,  and  subsequent 
intercourse  with  Him.  He  first  met,  as  we  have  seen,  Andrew, 
Simon,  and  John  at  Bethabara.  Whether  James  was  there  then,  we  do 
not  know.  Farrar  supposes  that  he  was  following  his  calling  as  a 
fisherman  in  Galilee ;  but  most  infer  from  the  language  (John  i.  41), 
"Andrew  findeth  first  his  own  brother  Simon,"  that  John  found  later 
his  own  brother  James.  To  these  four  Philip  and  Nathanael  were 
added,  so  that  we  may  believe  that  these  si.K  accompanied  the  Lord 
to  Cana,  and  were  present  at  the  marriage  there,  and  subsequently 
went  with  Him  to  Capernaum  (John  ii.  12).  Whether  they  went  up 
with  Him  to  the  Passover  when  He  cleansed  the  temple,  we  do  not 
know.  (It  is  affirmed  by  Godet,  and  denied  by  Caspari.  The  words, 
verse  17,  "  His  disciples  remembered,"  etc.,  are  not  decisive  to  show 
that  they  were  with  Him  when  spoken.)  But  the  fact  that  soon  after 
this  Passover  "  He  came  with  His  disciples  into  the  land  of  Judaea," 
where  they  baptized,  seems  to  show  that  some  or  all  of  these  six  were 
at  this  time  with  Him.  Since,  "of  the  many  who  believed  on  His 
name  "  at  the  feast  (John  ii.  23),  it  is  said,  "He  did  not  trust  Him- 
self unto  them,"  it  is  not  probable  that  He  chose  any  of  them  to  be 
His  special  helpers. 

It  seems,  therefore,  not  improbable  that  some  of  His  earliest 
disciples  were  with  the  Lord  during  His  Juda-an  ministry;  and  that 
they  returned  with  Him  wMien  He  left  Judsea  for  Galilee.  If  from  that 
time  —  December,  781  —  to  the  unnamed  feast  in  March,  782,  the  Lord 


268  THE   LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD,  [Part  IV". 

lived  iu  retirement,  these  disciples  would  return  to  their  homes  and 
their  several  occupations.  When  lie  began  His  Galilaean  work,  He 
called  James  and  John  and  Andrew  and  Peter  to  follow  and  aid  Him, 
but  no  mention  is  made  of  Philip  and  Nathanael.  The  only  one  of 
the  Twelve  of  whom  special  mention  is  made  as  afterward  called  to 
follow  the  Lord,  is  Levi  or  Matthew. 

Thus  we  have  previous  knowledge  of  seven  of  the  Twelve,  but  of 
the  earlier  relation  of  the  others  to  the  Lord, —  Thomas,  Simon  the 
Cauaanite,  James  the  son  of  Alphseus,  Thaddseus,  and  Judas  Iscariot, 
we  know  nothing.  They  may  have  been  among  the  believers  in  Jeru- 
salem at  the  iirst  Passover,  or  later  at  His  baptism  in  Judaea;  they  may 
perhaps  have  become  such  after  He  began  His  work  in  Galilee.' 
Wlicther  they  had  had  any  intimation  of  His  purpose  to  choose  them 
as  His  apostles,  we  are  not  told ;  most  suppose  that  He  had  j^reviously 
made  known  to  them  Avhat  He  proposed  to  do.  (See  the  note  of  Lind- 
say on  Mark  iii.  14.)  It  is  most  improbable  that  He  gave  them  at  that 
time  any  intimation  of  their  future  relations  to  the  Christian  Church. 

We  may  ask  whether  this  choice  of  the  Twelve  was  known  to  the 
Pharisees ;  and  if  so,  how  did  they  regard  it  ?  It  is  said  by  some 
that  at  the  delivery  of  tiie  Sermon  on  the  Mount  which  soon  followed, 
the  Apostles  stood  next  the  Lord,  then  the  discijiles  in  general, 
and  then  the  multitudes,  thus  forming  three  groups.  If  such  distinc- 
tion of  place  was  made,  it  must  have  been  seen,  and  the  subsequent 
attendance  of  the  Twelve  upon  the  Lord  also  noticed,  so  that  His 
enemies  w^ould  not  be  ignorant  that  some  step  had  been  taken  in  the 
way  of  organizing  His  disciples,  and  they  would  be  aroused  to  watch 
all  His  movements  still  more  closely. 

Whether  some  jiarticular  mountain  is  designated  by  the  use  of  the 
article  by  the  Synojrtists,  to  6pos,  "the  mountain,"  R.  Y.,  or  gen- 
erally, the  ridges  of  hills  on  the  sides  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee  as 
distinguished  from  the  low  shores,  we  cannot  easily  decide.  (See 
Tholuck,  Die  Bergrede  Chridi,  Gotha,  1872.)  The  Jews  distin- 
guished the  face  of  the  country  into  mountains,  plains,  and  valleys; 
and  according  to  Middleton,^  by  the  mountain  is  here  signified  "the 
mountain  district  as  distinguished  from  the  other  two."^  It  is  most 
natural  to  refer  it  to  some  specific  and  well-known  locality;  but  it  is 
plain  that  the  mountain  here  is  not  the  same  mentioned  in  ]\Iatt.  xiv. 
23,   Mark  vi.  46,   John  vi.    3,   where  the  five  thousand  were  fed,  or 


1  Acts  i.  21-2.  One  qualification  of  an  apogtle  was  tliat  lie  should  liave  been  with 
the  Lord,  "beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John,  unto  the  day  that  He  was  roceived  up." 
It  is  not  plain  from  what  point  in  John's  baptismal  worii  we  are  to  reckon;  not  from  its 
beginning,  or  from  the  Lord's  baptism,  perhaps  from  his  imprisonment. 

2  Greek  Article,  103.  3  ^ee  Ebrard,  349  ;  Meyer  on  Matt.  \.  1. 


Part  IV.]  THE   SERMON  ON  THE  MOUNT.  269 

that  iu  Matt.  xv.  29,  where  the  four  thousand  were  fed.  We  may 
theu  rather  infer  that  in  each  of  these  cases  the  mountain  is  defined 
by  the  article  because  supposed  to  be  already  well  known  as  the  site 
of  the  event.  Where  this  mountain  was,  is  now  only  a  matter  of  con- 
jecture. (Eders.,  i.  524.  ' '  One  of  those  mountain  ranges  which  stretch 
to  the  north  of  Capernaum."  So  Keil.)  Tradition  has  chosen  the  hill 
known  as  the  Horns  of  Ilattin  from  its  peculiar  shape,  and  called  by 
the  Latins  the  Mount  of  Beatitudes.  It  is  on  the  road  from  Tiberias 
to  Nazareth  —  a  ridge  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile  in  length,  running  east 
and  west.  At  each  end  rises  a  small  cone  or  horn.  Its  peculiar 
shape  attracts  the  attention  of  the  traveller,  and  is  probably  the 
cause  of  its  selection.  Robinson  contends  that  there  are  a  dozen 
other  mountains  in  the  vicinity  of  the  lake  which  would  answer  the 
purpose  just  as  well;  and  that  the  tradition  which  has  selected  this 
as  the  site,  goes  no  further  back  than  the  13th  century,  and  is  con- 
fined to  the  Latin  Church.  As  the  same  tradition  j^laces  here  also 
the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  which  is  certainly  an  error,  we  can- 
not attach  much  imjiortance  to  it.'  Stanley,  however  (360),  says: 
"  The  situation  so  strikingly  coincides  with  the  intimations  of  the 
Gospel  narrative  as  almost  to  force  the  inference,  that  in  this  instance 
the  eye  of  those  who  selected  the  spot  was  for  once  rightly  guided." 
With  Stanley,  Farrar  agrees.  On  the  other  hand,  Edersheim  says, 
that  "it  is  for  many  reasons  unsuitable." 

We  may  arrange  the  events  preparatory  to  the  delivery  of 
the  Sermon  on  tlic  Mount  in  the  following  order.  The  Lord 
leaving  Capei'naum  in  the  evening,  went  to  the  mount,  which 
cannot  have  been  at  any  great  distance,  and  spent  the  night 
alone.  Very  early  in  the  morning.  His  disciples,  probably 
according  to  His  direction,  came  to  Him,  and  from  them  He 
selected  the  Twelve.  By  this  time  the  multitudes  who  had 
lodged  in  Capernaum  or  in  its  neighborhood,  learning  whither 
He  had  gone,  followed  Him,  and  then  Fie  addressed  them. 

As  Matthew  (clis.  v.,  vi.,  vii.)  and  Luke  (vi.  17-49)  intro- 
duce their  reports  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  by  the  mention 
of  differing  circumstances,  and  as  their  reports  differ  in  many 
points,  it  has  been  questioned  whether  both  can  refer  to  the 
same  discourse.  The  various  opinions  may  be  thus  classified  : 
1st.  That  they  are  reports  of  discourses  wholly  distinct,  and 
spoken  at  different  times,  and  perhaps,  also,  at  different  places.'^ 


1  Raumer,  32,  note.  *  Patritius,  Krafft,  Grcswell, 


270  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  IV. 

2d.  That  they  are  reports  of  distinct  discourses,  but  spoken  suc- 
cessively: the  one,  before  the  choice  of  the  Apostles,  the  other, 
after  it;  the  one,  to  the  disciples,  the  other,  to  the  multitude-, 
the  one,  sitting  upon  the  mountain,  the  other,  standing  upon  the 
plain.'  3d.  That  they  are  two  reports  of  one  and  the  same 
discourse,  neither  of  the  Evangelists  giving  it  exactly  as  it  was 
spoken.^  4th.  That  Matthew  has  brought  together  the  Lord's 
words  spoken  at  different  times  and  places  —  a  kind  of  summary 
of  His  teachings  —  while  Luke  gives  a  particular  d'scourse  as  it 
was  delivered.  5th.  That  Matthew's  report  is  a  full  and  accu- 
rate one  of  what  the  Lord  said,  and  that  Luke  gives  a  condensed 
account  of  it,  adapting  it  to  his  readers. 

To  determine  which  of  these  views  is  correct,  or  how  the  respect- 
ive discourses  of  Matthew  and  Luke  stand  related  to  each  other,  we 
must  examine  in  detail  the  several  points  of  likeness  and  unlikencss. 

Ist.  Difference  of  place.  Matthew  (v.  1)  says:  "And  seeing 
the  multitudes.  He  went  up  into  a  mountain;  and  when  He  was  set, 
His  disciples  came  unto  Him,  and  He  opened  His  mouth,  and  taught 
them."  Luke  (vi.  17-20)  says,  that  after  the  choice  of  the  Twelve, 
"  He  came  down  with  them,  and  stood  in  the  plain  (iirl  tSttov  ireSivov, 
R.  V.  "on  a  level  place"),  and  the  company  of  His  disciples,  and  a 
great  multitude  of  people  .  .  .  which  came  to  hear  Him,  and  to 
be  healed  of  their  diseases ;  and  they  that  were  vexed  with  unclean 
spirits:  and  they  were  healed.  And  the  whole  multitude  sought  to 
touch  Him,  for  there  went  virtue  out  of  Him  and  healed  them  all. 
And  He  lifted  up  His  eyes  on  His  disciples,  and  said,"  etc.  Thus, 
according  to  Matthew,  the  discourse  was  delivered  by  the  Lord  sit- 
ting upon  the  side  or  top  of  a  mountain ;  according  to  Luke,  after 
He  had  chosen  the  Twelve  He  descended  to  the  plain,  and  having 
healed  the  sick,  addressed  those  present.  But  the  latter  does  not  say 
that  the  discourse  was  spoken  on  the  plain,  although  He  does  not 
mention  any  re-ascent.  Such  a  re-ascent  is  however  very  probable, 
for  it  is  said  "that  the  whole  multitude  sought  to  touch  Him  ";  and 
as,  when  similarly  pressed  upon  the  sea-shore  (Mark  iii.  9),  He  entered 
a  boat  and  taught  from  it,  so  now  He  would  naturally  ascend  to  a 
point  where  they  could  not  reach  Him,  and  from  whicli  He  could 
easily  be  seen  and  heard  by  all.'  Some  would  understand  the 
"  plain  "  of  Luke  of  a  level  spot  on  the  side  of  the  mountain,  or  at  its 


1  Augustine,  Lange. 

2  Robinson,  Tischendorf,  Stier. 
»  So  Robinson,  Har.,  193. 


Part  IV.]  THE  SERMON  ON  THE  MOUNT.  271 

foot,  where  the  multitude  could  sit  or  staud,  this  plain  itself  being, 
in  reference  to  the  sea-shore  from  whence  they  came,  a  part  of  the 
mountain.  Thus  Stanley,  speaking  of  the  hill  of  Hattin,  says:  "  The 
i:)lain  on  which  it  stands  is  easily  accessible  from  the  lake,  and  from 
that  plain  to  the  summit  is  but  a  few  minutes'  walk.  The  platform 
at  the  top  is  evidently  suitable  for  the  collection  of  a  multitude,  and 
corresponds  precisely  to  the  'level  place,' mistranslated  'plain,'  to 
which  He  would  '  come  down,'  as  from  one  of  its  higher  horns,  to 
address  thepeojjle."  '  In  this  way,  all  seeming  discrepancy  between 
Matthew  and  Luke  as  to  the  place  disappears.  The  choice  of  the 
Twelve  was  made  upon  the  mountain  before  the  multitude  gathered, 
which  choice  Matthew  does  not  mention.  As  the  Lord  beholds  the 
people  gathering  to  Him,  He  goes  down  with  His  disciples  to  meet 
them  upon  some  level  place;  and  after  heal,  g  the  sick,  He  seats 
Himself  in  a  position,  probably  higher  up  upon  the  hill,  where  He 
can  be  seen  and  heard  by  the  great  crowds,  and  proceeds  to  address 
them.* 

2d.  Difference  of  time.  Following  his  report  of  the  sermon, 
Matthew  relates  (viii.  2-4)  the  healing  of  the  leper,  as  immediately 
taking  place.  Luke  (vii.  2-10)  relates  the  healing  of  the  cen- 
turion's servant  as  immediately  following.  As  these  events  were  sep- 
arated by  a  considerable  interval  of  time,  so,  it  is  said  by  Kraflft  and 
others,  must  have  been  the  discourses  which  they  resjiectively  fol- 
lowed. But  we  have  already  seen  that  Matthew  is  not  narrating 
events  in  chronological  order,  and  that  the  healing  of  the  leper  took 
place  before  the  Sermon  on  the  mount.  We  are  not,  therefore, 
obliged  to  suppose  the  discourses  distinct  upon  this  ground. 

3d.  Difference  of  audience.  Matthew  (iv.  25)  describes  the  mul- 
titudes present  as  from  Galilee,  Decapolis,  Jerusalem,  Judaea,  and 
from  beyond  .Jordan;  Luke  (vi.  17),  as  from  all  Judaea,  Jerusalem, 
and  the  sea-coast  of  Tyre  and  Sidon.  From  this  partial  difference  of 
names  Krafft  (83)  infers  that  those  who  heard  the  discourse  reported 
by  Matthew  were  mostly  Jews,  with  perhaps  a  few  Syrians;  but  that 
those  who  heard  the  discourse  reported  by  Luke  were  mostly  from 
the  eastern  side  of  Galilee,  and  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon.  But 
this  inference  is  not  warranted.  In  this  enumeration  neither  of  the 
Evangelists  designs  to  discriminate  between  Jewish  and  heathen 
lands.  This  appears  from  Mark  (iii.  7,  8),  who  mentions  Galilee, 
Judaea,   Jerusalem,  Idumaea,  beyond  Jordan,   and   about   Tyre   and 


1  So  Thohick,  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  53,  "  a  level  place,  not  a  plain."    Weisacker: 
ein  ebenes  Feld.     Contra,  McClel.,  440. 

2  See  Ebrard,  350;    Stier,  i.  327;    Lichtenstein,  247.    Alford,  after  Meyer,  finds  tlie 
two  Evangelists  in  contradiction. 


272  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

Sidon.  If  heatlieu  were  present,  according  to  Luke,  from  Tyre  and 
Sidon,  so  might  they  be  also,  according  to  Matthew,  from  Decapolis. 
The  Evangelists  plainly  all  intend  to  say,  that  the  crowds  who  were 
present  came  from  every  part  of  the  land,  and  any  difference  in  the 
enumeration  of  the  regions  whence  they  came  is  unimportant.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  very  jjarticularity  of  the  mention  of  so  many 
provinces  by  each,  sufficiently  shows  that  all  jjoint  to  one  and  the 
same  period.  As  has  been  said,  some  affirm  that  the  discourse  in 
Matthew  was  spoken  to  the  disciples,  that  in  Luke  to  the  multitude ; 
and  they  understand  Matthew's  statement,  "Seeing  the  multitudes 
He  went  up  into  a  mountain,"  to  mean,  that  He  ascended  up  that 
He  might  avoid  them,  and  address  the  disciples  alone.  But  that  He 
addressed  the  multitudes,  is  plain  from  the  statement  (vii.  28)  that 
''  the  multitudes  were  astonished  at  His  teaching." 

The  supjDosition  that  the  Lord  first  addressed  the  apostles  and  dis- 
ciples, which  address  Matthew  gives,  and  then  the  multitudes, 
which  address  Luke  gives,  was  advocated  by  Augustine,  and  has 
been  the  ruling  one  in  the  Latin  Church.  (See  Maldonatus,  in  loco.) 
It  has  been  also  adopted  by  most  of  the  Lutheran  harmonists,  though 
Calvin  calls  this  view  light  and  frivolous.  That  there  is  something 
esoteric  in  the  former  and  exoteric  in  the  latter,  maybe  admitted; 
but  this  is  owing,  not  to  the  different  audiences  to  whom  the  dis- 
courses were  spoken,  but  to  the  different  classes  of  readers  for  which 
the  two  Gospels  were  designed. 

4th.  Difference  of  contents.  "Of  107  verses  in  Matthew,  Luke 
contains  only  30 ;  his  four  beatitudes  are  balanced  by  as  many  woes ; 
and  in  bis  text  parts  of  the  sermon  are  introduced  by  sayings  which 
do  not  precede  them  in  Matthew,  but  which  naturally  connect  with 
them."'  But  these  differences  are  few  when  comjiared  with  the  re- 
semblances. The  beginning  and  ending  of  both  are  the  same;  there 
is  a  general  similarity  in  the  order,  and  often  identity  in  the  expres- 
sions. Often  in  the  Evangelists,  when  their  reports  are  in  substance 
the  same,  there  are  many  variations.'^  That  the  two  discourses  should 
have  so  much  in  common  if  they  were  distinct,  spoken  at  different 
times  and  to  different  audiences,  is  most  improbable.  That  many  of 
the  shorter  proverbial  expressions  might  be  used  at  various  times  is 
natural,  but  not  that  such  similarity  should  prevail  throughout.^ 


1  Alford  on  Matt.  v.  1.    See  also  Gieswell,  ii.  429;  Krafft,  8.3. 

-  Compare  the  Lord's  Prayer  as  ^iven  Matt.  vi.  9-13  and  Lnke  xi.  2-4;  and  His 
discouree  concerning  the  Pharisees,  Milt,  sxiii.  and  Luke  xx.  46. 

3  Neander's  explanation,  224,  that  the  orifiinal  document  of  Matthew  beinir  of 
Hebrew  origin,  "  passed  through  the  hands  of  the  Greek  editor,  who  has  inserted  other 
expressions  of  Chri.st  allied  to  those  in  the  organic  connection  of  the  discourse,  but 
8poken  on  other  occasions,"  is  an  arbitrary  assumption. 


Part  IV.]  THE   SERMON   ON   THE   MOUNT.  273 

Without  entering  into  the  vexed  question  of  inspiration,  its 
nature  and  degrees,  we  may  say  that  each  Evangehst,  writing 
under  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  made  such  selection  of 
the  Lord's  words,  as  well  as  of  the  events  in  His  history,  and  so 
arranged  them,  as  best  to  meet  the  wants  of  those  for  whom  he 
.vrote.  That  Luke  should  omit  those  portions  of  the  discourse 
aving  special  reference  to  the  Jewish  sects  and  to  the  Mosaic 
liws,  was  in  accordance  with  the  general  scope  of  his  Gospel  as 
designed  for  Gentile  Christians;  while  Matthew,  on  the  other 
hand,  writing  for  Jewish  Christians,  would  retain  tliem. 
(Wordsworth,  on  Luke  vi.  17.)  To  this  Alford  and  others  object 
that  in  some  cases  Luke  is  fuller  than  Matthew  (compare  Matt. 
vii.  1,  2,  and  Luke  vi.  37,  38).  But,  as  has  been  said,  Mat- 
thew may  not  give  the  words  of  the  Lord  in  all  their  fullness; 
and  it  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  the  fact  of  an  epitome  that 
certain  thoughts  should  be  more  fully  expanded  than  in  the 
original,  when  this  original  is  itself  but  an  epitome. 

There  is  still  another  argument  against  the  identity  of  these 
two  discourses,  based  upon  the  fact  that  Matthew  does  not  relate 
his  own  call  (ix.  9)  till  he  had  recorded  the  sermon.  But  it  is 
so  abundantly  established  that  Matthew  does  not  follow  chron- 
ological order,  that  this  is  of  no  importance. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  Matthew  gives  this  discourse  sub- 
stantially, if  not  literally,  as  it  was  spoken;  and  that  Luke  gives 
the  same,  but  modified  to  meet  the  wants  of  that  class  of  readers 
for  whom  he  especially  wrote.' 

It  is  not  in  our  province  to  interpret  this  discourse,  but  it 
gives  some  historical  data  which  should  be  noted.  1st.  Hisdenial 
that  He  came  to  destroy  the  law  and  the  prophets  (Matt.  v.  17). 
Charges  of  this  kind  were,  undoubtedly,  often  made  against  Him. 
2d.  His  intimation  that  all  who  should  receive  Him,  must  suffer 
reproach  and  persecution  (v.  11),  "  Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall 
reproach  you,  and  persecute  you.  and  say  all  manner  of  evil 
against  you  falsely,  for  my  sake."  3d.  The  authority  with 
which  He  speaks,  as  shown  in  the  frequent  recurrence  of  the 
words,  "But  I  say  unto  you";  and  in  His  declaration  (vii.  22), 


1  In  this  view  of  tlie  matter,  most  agree  ;  Rob.,  Tholuck,  Alex.,  Fried.,  Ellicott, 
Eders. 

12* 


274  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

"  Many  will  say  to  me  in  that  day,  Lord,  Lord,  .  .  .  and 
then  will  I  profess  unto  them,  I  never  knew  you,  depart  from 
me,  ye  that  work  iniquity."  His  language  throughout  is  not 
that  of  a  rabbi,  or  a  prophet,  but  of  a  Law -giver  and  a  King. 

Midsummer,  781.    A.  D.  28. 

After  the  sermon  is  euded  Jesus  returns  to  Capernaum, 
still  followed  by  the  multitudes.     Immediately  after  His    Matt.  viii.  5-13. 
return,  He  heals  the  centurion's  servant.     The  crowds  con-    Luke  vii.  1-10. 
tinuingto  follow  Him  so  that  He  has  no  time  even  to  eat,     Mark  iii.  30,  21. 
His  friends  become   alarmed  at  His  incessant  labors,  and 
thinking  Him  beside  Himself,  attempt  to  restrain  Him. 

It  is  said  by  Luke  (vii.  1),  "  Now  when  He  had  ended  all 
His  sayings  in  the  audience  of  the  people.  He  entered  into 
Capernaum."  (R.  V.,  "After  He  had  ended.")  Mark,  after 
mentioning  the  choice  of  the  Twelve,  adds  :  "  And  they  went 
into  a  house,"  or  more  literally,  -'went  home"  —  elg  oIkov  — 
that  is,  to  His  house  in  Capernaum.  (See  ii.  1.)  It  is  probable 
that  the  heahng  of  the  centurion's  servant  was  on  the  day  of  His 
return  (Matt.  viii.  5).  The  mention  of  this  centurion  seems  to 
be  the  ground  of  the  general  belief  that  a  Roman  garrison  was 
stationed  here,  but  it  is  more  probable  that  the  centurion  was 
under  Herod.' 

The  difference  between  Matthew  and  Luke,  that  according 
to  the  former,  the  centurion  came  unto  the  Lord  in  person,  but 
according  to  the  latter,  he  made  his  request  by  the  elders,  is 
unimportant.  That  the  synagogue  here  spoken  of  as  built  by  the 
centurion,  is  the  same  as  that  the  ruins  of  which  are  now  to  be 
seen  at  Tell  Hum,  is  not  improbable.  It  is  said  by  Tristram 
(B.  P.  279)  :  "  If  this  be  Capernaum,  then  this  must,  beyond 
doubt,  be  the  synagogue  built  by  the  Roman  centurion."  (So 
Eders.,  i.  546,  and  Col.  Wilson;  but  it  is  objected  by  others  that  its 
architecture  shows  it  to  be  of  later  date.)  That  the  elders  should 
come  to  make  the  request  is  wholly  in  accordance  with  oriental 
usage  (Thomson,  i.  313),  and  that  they  were  willing  to  make 
it  shows  that  at  this  time  no  general  hostility  had  yet  devel- 
oped itself  against  the  Lord  in  Capernaum. 


1  So  Keil,  Meyer,  Godet.    As  to  Roman  garrisons  in  Jewish  cities,  see  SchUrer,  I.  ii 
61. 


Part  IV.]  JESUS   RETURNS   TO   CAPERNAUM.  275 

Returning  to  Capernaum,  the  Lord  found  no  rest.  So  earnest 
were  the  people  to  see  and  hear  Him,  and  to  bring  to  Him  their 
sick,  that  He  found  no  time  even  to  eat  (Mark  ill.  20).  This 
intense  activity  alarmed  His  friends  for  His  sanity  (verse  21, 
'•He  is  beside  Himself")  and  '-they  went  out  to  lay  hold  on 
Him."  Mark  mentions  a  little  later  (verse  31)  a  visit  of 
His  mother  and  brethren,  apparently  to  restrain  Him  from 
such  excessive  labors.  Are  these  two-  events  the  same  ?  Are 
"  His  friends  "  in  verse  21,  the  same  as  "His  mother  and  His 
brethren"  in  verse  31  ?     This  point  we  will  briefly  consider. 

We  must  first  ask  how  the  expression,  ol  irap  avroQ,  literally  "  those 
from  Him,"  is  to  be  understood?  It  is  said  that  the  only  allowable 
translation  is  that  of  "relatives  "  or  "  kinsmen,"  and  that,  therefore, 
these  here  mentioned  must  liave  been  His  mother  and  brethren.*  But 
in  the  R.  V.,  the  translation  "  His  friends  "  of  the  A.  V.  is  retained. 
The  question  is,  whether  kinship  is  meant,  or  some  relation  of  dis- 
cipleship  or  friendship.  It  is  said  by  Lichtenstein  that  they  were 
disciples  in  the  larger  sense,  not  of  the  Twelve;  by  Ebrard,  that 
they  were  the  people  of  the  house  where  He  was ;  by  Keil,  that  they 
were  not  distinctively  His  disciples,  but  some  in  Capernaum  friendly 
to  Him,  who,  knowing  how  great  the  pressure  upon  Him,  came  out 
of  their  houses  to  interfere. 

If  we  distinguish  His  friends  from  His  relatives  —  His  mother  and 
brethren  —  we  find  two  events,  and  we  must  enquire  as  to  the  order 
of  their  occurrence.  Mark  alone  makes  mention  of  His  friends,  but 
all  the  Synoptists  mention  the  visit  of  His  relatives.  In  Matthew, 
this  stands  in  immediate  relation  to  the  request  of  the  Pharisees  for  a 
sign  (xii.  38-46),  and  after  He  had  been  accused  by  them  of  being  in 
alHance  with  Beelzebub  (verse  24).  Mark  (iii.  31)  also  brings  it  into 
immediate  connection  with  this  accusation  (verse  22).  Luke  (viii.  19) 
puts  it  after  the  teaching  in  parables,  but  without  any  special  indica- 
tion as  to  tlie  time.  It  seems,  therefore,  most  probable  that  the 
visit  of  His  relatives  must  be  put  somevvliat  later  than  the  visit  of  His 
friends,  and  when  the  enmity  of  the  Pharisees  was  more  developed. 
As  to  the  chronological  place  of  the  first  interference,  we  are  to  note 
that  Mark  does  not  say  that  it  was  immediately  after  the  descent  from 
the  mount.  In  the  R.  V.  (verse  19)  it  reads,  "And  He  cometh  into 
a  house,"  or  in  the  margin,  "  eomcth  home,"  beginning  here  a  new 
paragraph.      This   was   the    original    division  when   the   Bible   was 


'  So  T.  O.  Lex.  gub  voce,  napa,  Meyer.  Alex.,  Stier.  Alford,  Norton;  in  the  Vulgate 
it  is  rendered,  et  cum  audissent  sui ;  by  De  Wette  and  Weisacker,  die  Seinigen, 


276  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

divided  into  verses,  and  is  retained  bj'  many  modern  editors  and  trans- 
lators ;  it  is  also  the  division  in  the  Vulgate.  It  is,  therefore,  possible, 
that  this  attempt  of  His  friends  was  some  days  or  even  weeks  after 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  But  it  may  very  well  have  been  immedi- 
ately after  this,  and  the  expression,  "  The  multitude  cometh  together 
again,"  seems  to  indicate  that  after  a  temporary  dispersion,  such  as 
was  natural  in  coming  from  the  mount,  they  had  reassembled  in  the 
city,  and  doubtless  before  His  own  dwelling.' 

How  are  we  to  understand  the  words  of  His  friends,  "He  is  be- 
side Himself?  "  Did  they  really  question  His  sanity?  The  expression, 
e^icTt],  does  not  necessarily  mean  this.  (See  Mark  ii.  12;  T.  G.  Lex., 
Eders.  i.  543.)  It  is  most  probable  that  they  thought  Him  over- 
excited, and  attempting  labors  beyond  His  strength,  and  therefore 
needing  to  be  restrained.  But  if  it  were  their  belief  that  He  was 
really  insane,  it  would  simply  show  how  incapable  they  were  of 
understanding  what  zeal  for  God  possessed  Him,  and  what  strength 
He  received  from  His  Father  for  His  work. 

If,  however,  on  the  other  hand,  we  identify,  as  many  or  perhaps 
most  do.  His  friends  with  His  mother  and  brethren,  and  lind  one 
event  only,  this  is  not,  as  we  have  seen,  necessarily  to  be  put  imme- 
diately after  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Some  put  it  after  the  heal- 
ing of  the  demoniac  (Matt.  xii.  22  ;  so  Light.,  Fried.,  Gardiner, 
Eders.),  when  the  charge  of  the  Pharisees  that  He  cast  out  devils  by 
the  aid  of  Beelzebub,  must  have  greatly  agitated  His  relatives. 

While,  then,  we  cannot  positively  assert  that  the  two  events  are 
not  to  be  identified,  yet  the  probability  is,  that  they  are  distinct.  If 
distinct,  the  first  is  to  be  put  at  or  soon  after  the  descent  from  the 
mount ;  and  the  second,  after  the  healing  of  the  dumb  and  blind  demo- 
niacs. If  identified,  the  latter  date  is  the  more  probable.''  The  place 
from  which  His  relatives  came  will  be  later  considered. 

Midsummer,  781.     A.D.  28. 

Soon  after  the  healing  of  the  centurion's  servant  He    Luke  vii.  11-17. 
goes  to  Nain,  accompanied  by  the  disciples  and  many 
people.     He  there  restores  to  life  the  son  of  a  widow  as 
they  were  hearing  him  to  the  grave.      "While  continuing    Matt.  xi.  1-19. 
His  ministry  in  that  part  of  Galilee,  John  the  Baptist,    Luke  vii.  18-35. 
who  hears  of  His  M'orks,  sends  from  his  prison  a  message 
to  Him  by  two  of  his  disciples.     Jesus  answers  their 
question,  and  addresses  the  multitude  respecting  John. 


1  In  Tisch.,  the  article  is  omitted  before  multitude,  in  W.  and  H.  it  is  bracketed 
If  we  omit  it,  it  reads  "  a  multitude,"  not  identifying  it  with  that  from  the  mount, 

-  The  two  are  distinguished  by  Bengel,  Rob,,  Farrar,  Lex,,  Fuller,  Keil,  Eders.; 
and  identified  by  Light,,  Ellicott,  Gardiner,  Quandt,  Meyer. 


Part  IV.]  JESUS  AT  NAIN.  27? 

The  order  of  events  here  will  depend  iip^n  the  reading. 
Luke  vii.  11,  whether  kv  t^  s^TJg,  or  iv  rco  (-'Iz/r,  "the  day  after," 
or  "afterward."  '  (In  R.  V.  "It  came  to  pass  afterwards,"  but 
see  margin.  We  accept  the  R.  V.)  But  how  long  He  now  re- 
mained at  Capernaum  we  are  not  told.  Some  interval  must 
have  elapsed  before  His  relatives  came  from  Nazareth  —  if  this 
was  their  residence  —  to  Capernaum.  His  departure  to  Nain 
was  the  beginning  of  His  second  circuit. 

The  Lord  gave  Himself  no  rest,  but  entered  immediately 
upon  new  labors.  From  this  time  the  Twelve  were  constantly 
with  Him  till  sent  forth  upon  their  mission.  Beside  them  many 
of  the  other  disciples  now  accompanied  Him,  as  well  as  much 
people. 

Nain  lies  on  the  northwest  decHvity  of  the  hill  of  Little 
Hermon,  commanding  an  extensive  view  over  the  plain  of 
Esdraelon  and  the  northern  hills.  It  is  now  an  insignificant 
village,  with  no  remains  of  any  importance.  "  No  convent,  no 
tradition  marks  the  spot.  But  under  these  circumstances,  the 
name  is  sufficient  to  guarantee  its  authenticity."  ^  Tristram 
(B.  P.,  241)  says  of  it:  "  Nain  must  have  been  a  city  ;  the 
ruined  heaps  and  traces  of  walls  prove  that  it  was  of  consider- 
able extent,  and  a  walled  town,  and  therefore  with  gates,  accord- 
ing to  the  Gospel  narrative." 

As  the  Jews  usually  buried  the  dead  upon  the  same  day  they 
died  and  before  sundown,^  it  has  been  questioned  how  the  Lord 
could  have  reached  Nain  from  Capernaum  so  early  in  the  day  as 
to  meet  the  funeral  procession.  But  it  is  unceitain  whether  He 
left  Capernaum  that  morning.  He  may  have  been  at  some  point 
much  nearer  to  Nain,  and  if  not,  as  the  distance  is  only  about 
twenty-five  miles,  and  probably  less,  it  might  be  walked  in  seven 
or  eight  hours.  As  the  orientals  walk  rapidly,  and  commence 
their  journeys  early  in  the  morning,  He  might  have  reached 
Nain  by  noon,  or  a  little  after.'' 

The  restoration  to  life  of  the  widow's  son  was  the  first  work  of 
this  kind  the  Lord  had  wrought,  and  naturally  produced  a  most 


1  For  the  first,  Tischeiidorf,  Robint^on,   Wiegeler,  Alfoid,  Keil  ;    contra,  Meyer 
Stier,  W.  and  H. 

2  Stanley,  349.  3  Winer,  ii.  16,  note  1. 
*  For  details  of  this  miracle,  see  Edersheim,  i.  553. 


278  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

powerful  impression  on  all  who  heard  of  it.  All  saw  in  it 
the  mighty  hand  of  God,  who  alone  could  bring  the  dead  to  life. 
The  Evangelist  mentions  (Luke  vii.  16)  that  -'there  came  a  fear 
on  all,  and  they  glorified  God,  saying,  that  a  great  prophet  is 
risen  up  among  us  ;  and  that  God  hath  visited  His  people." 
Keil  understands  this  as  expressing  the  popular  feeling  that 
Jesus  was  not  the  Messiah,  but  His  forerunner.  No  such  miracle 
had  been  wrought  since  the  days  of  Elisha ;  the  fame  of  it 
"  went  forth  through  all  Judaea,  and  throughout  all  the  region 
round  about,"  and  thus  coming  to  the  ears  of  some  of  John's 
disciples,  was  told  by  them  to  their  master.  Luke  says  (vii. 
18),  "And  the  disciples  of  John  showed  him  of  all  these  things." 
This  may  mean  that  they  told  him  of  all  that  Jesus  had  recently 
done.  His  works  of  healing,  the  choice  of  the  Twelve,  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount,  as  well  as  of  this  work  at  Nain  ;  and  also 
of  His  great  popularity,  and  of  the  crowds  that  continually  fol- 
lowed Him.  If  we  assume  that  the  place  of  John's  imprison- 
ment was  Machaerus,'  a  fortress  in  the  southern  part  of  Persea, 
just  on  the  confines  of  Arabia,  some  days  at  least  must  have 
elapsed  between  this  miracle  and  the  coming  of  John's  messen- 
gers.^ Perhaps  our  Lord  continued  during  this  interval  at  Nain, 
teaching  all  who  had  been  so  impressed  by  His  mighty  work 
that  they  had  ears  to  hear  ;  or  He  may  have  visited  the  adjacent 
cities  and  villages  ;  or  He  may,  after  a  brief  circuit,  have  re- 
turned to  Capernaum,  and  hither,  as  the  place  of  His  residence, 
John's  disciples  have  come. 

Some  place  this  miracle  after  the  raising  of  the  daughter  of 
Jairus,  chiefly  because  the  former  is  a  greater  exhibition  of  the 
power  of  Christ.  Thus  Trench  ^  says  of  the  three  miracles  of 
raising  the  dead,  that  "  they  are  not  exactly  the  same  miracle 
repeated  three  times  over,  but  may  be  contemplated  as  -  an  ever- 
ascending  scale  of  difficulty,  each  a  greater  outcoming  of  the 
power  of  Christ  than  the  preceding."  But  this  is  more  plausible 
than  sound.  If  there  be  such  "  an  ever-ascending  scale  of  dif- 
ficulty," we  should  find  the  Lord's  first  works  of  healing  less 
mighty  than  the  later  ;  but  this  is  not  the  case.     If  we  compare 


1  Josephus,  War,  vii.  6.  1-3.  ^  See  Greswell,  ii.  327. 

3  Mir.,  152. 


Part  IV.]     MESSAGE   OP  THE  BAPTIST  TO  JESUS.  279 

the  two  miracles  of  feeding  the  multitude,  the  first  is  the  more 
stupendous.  The  impression  which  the  raising  of  the  widow's  son 
made  on  all,  seems  plainly  to  show  that  it  was  the  first  of  its 
kind  (Luke  vii.  16,  17). 

Perhaps  the  message  of  the  Baptist  may  stand  in  close  con- 
nection with  the  great  miracle  at  Nain.  It  is  not  within  our 
scope  to  ask  what  motives  may  have  controlled  him,  but  such 
a  miracle  must  have  convinced  him,  had  he  before  had  any 
doubts,  that  Jesus  was  divinely  sent,  and  that  the  mighty  power 
of  God  was  indeed  with  Him.  The  question  then,  "  Art  thou 
He  that  should  come,  or  look  we  for  another  ?  "  may  be  an  in- 
timation that  Jesus  should  now  put  forth  in  direct  act  that 
power  of  which  He  had  just  shown  Himself  to  be  possessed  ;  a 
question  of  impatience  rather  than  of  doubt. 

The  answer  of  the  Lord  to  the  messengers  meets  this  state  of 
mind.  He  refers  to  His  daily  works  as  being  truly  Messianic, 
and  such  as  befitted  Him  to  perform.  Not  acts  of  judgment 
but  of  mercy  belong  to  His  office.  His  work  is  now  to  heal 
the  sick,  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  poor,  to  raise  the  dead. 
He  adds,  as  a  caution  to  John,  "  Blessed  is  he  whosoever  shall 
not  be  offended  in  me."  "  Blessed  is  he  who  shall  under- 
stand the  work  I  now  do,  and  not  stumble  at  it." 

This  question  of  John,  which  some,  as  Jones,  suppose  to 
have  arisen  from  no  doubt  on  John's  part,  but  to  have  been  sug- 
gested by  the  Holy  Spirit  for  the  confirmation  of  the  faith  of 
others,  gives  Jesus  an  opportunity  to  bear  His  direct  witness  to 
him  as  a  prophet,  and  more,  as  the  herald  of  the  Messiah  (Matt. 
xi.  9,  10).  He  declares  also  to  the  people,  that  if  they  will 
receive  him,  he  is  the  Elias  that  was  for  to  come  ;  and  re- 
proaches them  that  they  would  not  receive  John  or  Himself  in 
either  of  their  different  modes  of  working  or  teaching  (Matt.  xi. 
16-19  ;  Luke  vii.  31-35).  His  testimony  to  John  was  well  re- 
ceived by  the  people  and  the  pubHcans,  all  those  who  had  been 
baptized  by  him  ;  but  not  by  the  Pharisees  and  lawyers,  who 
had  rejected  his  baptism  (Luke  vii.  29,  30). 

This  testimony  of  Jesus  to  John  as  the  herald  of  the  Messiah, 
was  a  plain  assertion,  though  an  indirect  one,  of  His  own 
Messianic  character.     But  John  was  now  in  prison.     How  was 


280  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR   LORD.  [Part  IV. 

this  compatible  with  his  being  Elias  ?  How  could  he  prepare 
the  Lord's  way  ?  Did  not  this  very  fact  of  his  imprisonment 
conclusively  disprove  all  his  claims  to  be  the  forerunner  of  the 
Messiah  ?  This  tacit  objection  Jesus  meets  by  showing  that  it 
depended  on  them,  whether  or  no  John  was  the  Elias.  If  they 
received  him,  if  they  hearkened  to  his  words,  and  permitted  him 
to  do  his  work,  then  he  would  be  to  them  that  prophet,  and  fulfill 
all  that  was  said  of  Elias.  But  they  had  not  so  received  him  ; 
they  had  said  of  him  that  he  had  a  devil  ;  and  now  he  was  shut 
up  in  prison  ;  and  thus  the  Jews  were  made  clearly  to  under- 
stand the  connection  between  John's  ministry  and  that  of  Jesus, 
and  how  the  rejection  of  the  former  involved  that  of  the  latter. 

Immediately  upon  these  words  concerning  John,  follows  in 
Matthew  (xi.  20-24)  an  apostrophe  to  the  cities  of  Bethsaida,  Cho- 
razin,  and  Capernaum.  It  is  given  by  Luke  later,  and  in  con- 
nection with  the  mission  of  the  seventy  disciples  (Luke  x.  13-16). 
The  point  is  of  some  importance  as  bearing  on  the  question, 
how  long  the  Lord's  work  in  Galilee  had  now  continued. 

It  is  said  by  Matthew  :  "  Then  began  He  to  upbraid  the  cities 
wherein  most  of  His  mighty  works  were  done,  because  they  re- 
pented not."  This  would  indicate  that  a  considerable  time  had 
elapsed  since  His  ministry  began  in  Galilee,  and  that  it  was  now 
drawing  to  a  close.  In  Matthew's  arrangement  it  is  put  after 
the  Twelve  were  sent  out,  and  John's  messengers  had  come  to 
Him  (xi.  1-2).  Is  "then"  —  tote  —  here  a  mark  of  time? 
There  seems  no  good  rea^son  why  it  is  not  to  be  so  taken  here, 
for  the  woes  on  the  cities  that  follow  are  in  keeping  with  His 
words  respecting  John  and  Himself  (xi.  18,  19).  But  the  posi- 
tion of  these  woes  in  Luke  at  the  time  of  sending  out  the 
Seventy,  and  at  the  end  of  His  Galilean  ministry,  is  rather  to  be 
preferred.  And  some  think  that  the  Lord  repeated  them.  It 
is  suggested  by  Alexander  that  a  part  spoken  to  the  Seventy  is 
given  by  Matthew  "  on  account  of  its  aflBnity  with  what  pre- 
cedes." As  he  does  not  mention  the  sending  of  the  Seventy, 
there  seems  to  be  no  valid  objection  to  this  view  of  a  repetition.' 


1  Opinions  are  much  divided.  Of  those  who  thinli  them  spoken  once,  and  follow- 
ing Matthew,  areCaspari,  Keil ;  following  Luke,  Block,  Godet,  Friedlieb,  Gardiner,  Krafft. 
Edersheim,  and  many.  Of  those  who  think  them  spoken  twice,  Lightfoot,  Robinson 
Meyer,  Stroud;  Parrar,  not  twice  spoken,  but  placed  too  early  by  Matthew. 


Part  IV.]  ANOINTING  AT   THE   HOUSE   OP  SIMON,  28i 

Whether  the  journey  (Luke  viii.  1-3)  made  in  company 
with  "the  Twelve  and  certain  women,"  was  a  continuation  of 
the  circuit  from  Nain,  is  not  certain,  though  most  probable. 
Edersheim  (i.  573)  supposes  Him  to  have  returned  to  Capernaum 
after  the  miracle  at  Nain,  and  on  this  return  journey  to  have 
healed  the  two  blind  men  and  the  demonized  dumb  mentioned 
by  Matthew  (ix.  27-31).  If,  however,  the  anointing  was  at 
Capernaum,  this  may  refer  to  a  new  circuit.  The  remark  of 
Ellicott  (184)  that  "this  circuit  could  not  have  lasted  much 
above  a  day  or  two  after  the  miracle  at  Nain,"  is  plainly  at 
variance  with  the  Evangelist's  language  (viii.  1),  that  "He  went 
throughout  every  city  and  village  preaching,"  which  upon  its 
face  implies  a  circuit  of  considerable  duration.'  This  circuit  is 
distinguished  from  His  former  ones  by  the  attendance  of  the 
women,  whose  names  are  mentioned  :  Mary  Magdalene,  Joanna, 
wife  of  Chuza,  Herod's  steward,  and  Susanna,  and  many  others. 
Nothing  is  historically  known  of  any  of  these  persons  more  than 
is  here  related.  Their  attendance  on  the  Lord  may  perhaps  be 
regarded  as  marking  an  onward  step  in  His  ministry. 
Whether  from  this  time  they  generally  accompanied  Him  in 
His  journeys  is  not  stated,  but  is  not  improbable.  (See  Luke 
xxiii.  55;  compare  Matt.  xx.  17,  20.) 

Autumn,  781.     A.  D.  28. 

Jesus  dines  with  a  Pharisee  named  Siraon,  and  while  at    Luke  vii.  36-50. 
the  table  is  anointed  by  a  woman  who  is  a  sinner.     In  re- 
ply to  Simon's  complaint  He  relates  the  parable  of  the  two 
debtors.      He  continues  His  circuit  in  Galilee  with   the    Luke  viii.  1-3. 
Twelve,  and  also  accompanied  by  certain  women. 

It  is  much  disputed  whether  one,  two,  or  three  anointings  of 
tlic  Lord  are  mentioned  by  the  Evangelists,  and  whether  these 
were  by  one  or  two  women,  and  when,  and  where  they  took 
place.     A  brief  discussion  of  these  points  is  thei-efore  necessary. 

We  first  ask  how  many  times  was  the  Lord  anointed  ?  (Matt. 
XXVI.6;  Mark  xiv.  3;  Luke  vii.  36;  John  xii.  2.)  A  few  of  the  early 
fathers  said  three  times;  Matthew  and  Mark  relating  one  instance, 


1  It  is  impossible,  without  s^reat  violence  to  hmgnage,  to  compress  so  much  of 
the  Lord's  work  into  the  brief  interval  between  Purim  and  the  Passover  following,  as 
Ellicott  is  compelled  to  do  by  assuming  that  the  feast  (.John  v.  1)  is  Purim. 


382  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV 

John  another,  and  Luke  a  tliird.  But  more  said,  He  was  twice 
anointed,  Matthew  and  Mark  and  John  relating  one  instance,  and 
Luke  a  second.  On  the  other  hand,  some  said.  He  was  anointed 
only  once,  all  the  Evangelists  relating  the  same.  (For  the  early 
opinions,  see  Maldonatus,  in  locis;  Nebe,  Leidensgeschichte,  120.) 
And  down  to  the  present  time  each  of  these  opinions  has  its  ad- 
vocates. 

Assuming  here,  what  is  generally  admitted  but  Avhich  will  be 
examined  when  the  events  of  Passion  week  are  considered,  that 
Matthew  and  Mark  and  John  all  refer  to  the  same  anointing,  we  shall 
now  consider  only  the  point  whether  this  is  the  one  mentioned  by 
Luke. 

The  ground  upon  which  one  anointing  only  has  been  affirmed  is 
in  general  the  similarity  of  the  narratives  as  seen  in  three  particulars : 
first,  the  identity  of  the  names  of  the  givers  of  the  feasts,  being  both 
Simon;  second,  the  very  unusual  character  of  the  act,  and  the  con- 
sequent improbability  that  it  would  be  repeated;  third,  the  offense 
taken  in  both  cases  by  persons  present. 

As  to  the  first,  the  identity  of  names,  this  has  little  force.  The 
name  Simon  was  one  of  the  most  common  among  the  Jews,  and  in  the 
New  Testament  some  eight  persons  of  this  name  are  mentioned.  Be- 
sides, the  two  Simons  are  here  distinguished ;  in  Luke  ' '  Simon  the 
Pharisee,"  in  Matthew  and  Mark  "Simon  the  leper."  We  cannot 
then,  on  this  ground,  affirm  that  they  are  one  and  the  same  person. 

As  to  the  second,  that  such  an  act  with  its  attendant  circumstances 
could  scarcely  have  been  repeated,  we  know  that  the  anointing  of 
the  head  was  common,  and  not  uncommon  the  anointing  of  the  feet. 
(Hamburg.,  i.  887.)  The  wiping  of  His  feet  wuth  the  hairs  of  the  head 
was  most  remarkable,  but  the  same  feeling  of  humility,  reverence, 
and  love  that  called  it  forth  from  one  person,  might  also  from  another. 
Luthardt  suggests  that  Mary  of  Bethany  (John  xii.  3)  may  have 
heard  what  the  woman,  "a  sinner,"  did  to  the  Lord  (Luke  vii.  38), 
and  she  would  not  do  less. 

As  to  the  third,  that  some  of  those  present  should  on  both  oc- 
casions take  offense,  it  is  quite  what  we  might  expect  from  the 
peculiar  character  of  the  act.  But  the  persons  are  not  the  same,  nor 
the  ground  of  the  offense.  Some  of  the  disciples,  represented  by 
Judas  Iscariot,  blamed  Mary  for  her  waste ;  Simon  the  Pharisee  found 
fault  that  the  Lord,  if  a  prophet,  should  have  received  such  an  anoint- 
ing from  a  woman,  a  sinner. 

If  we  now  note  the  dissimilarities,  we  find  them  to  be  many  and 
important.  As  against  the  identity  of  the  two  Simons,  besides  their 
differing  designations,    "Pharisee"  and  "leper,"  we  must  take  into 


Part  IV.]  JESUS  ANOINTED  IN  GALILEE.  283 

account  the  differences  of  time  and  place.  Luke  puts  this  anointing  in 
the  midst  of  the  Lord's  Galilaeau  ministry,  and  somewhere  in  Galilee ; 
the  other  Evangelists,  some  days  only  before  His  death,  and  at  Bethany 
near  Jerusalem.  It  may  be  said,  as  by  Grotius,  that  Luke  often  dis- 
regards time  and  place,  but  it  is  scarcely  credible  that  he  should  take 
this  event  so  wholly  out  of  its  actual  connections.  Nor  can  the  language 
of  Simon  the  Pharisee  be  put  into  the  mouth  of  Simon  the  leper;  nor 
can  the  words  of  the  Lord  to  the  two  women  have  been  spoken  to  one 
and  the  same  person.  To  the  sinner  He  said,  ' '  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  " ; 
of  Mary,  "She  did  it  for  my  burial "  .  .  .  ("to  prepare  me  for 
my  burial,"  R.  V.).  And  it  is  most  unlikely  that  after  the  Pharisees 
had  resolved  to  put  the  Lord  to  death,  a  Pharisee  would  have 
received  Him  into  his  house,  and  honored  Him  with  a  feast.' 

But  the  more  general  belief  has  been  from  the  first  that  there  were 
two  anointings.*  If  we  accept  two  anointings,  one  in  Galilee  and 
one  in  Bethany,  were  there  two  women  anointing,  or  one?  If  one, 
since  Mary  of  Bethany  is  expressly  named  (John  xii.  3),  the  "the 
sinner"  of  Luke,  must  be  identified  with  her.  This  identification 
was  held  by  some,  perhaps  most,  of  the  Latin  fathers.  Thus 
Augustine  says:  eamlem  Mariam  his  liocfec.isse.  On  the  other  side, 
many  held  that  there  were  two  women,  Mary  of  B.  and  "  the  sinner  " 
being  distinct  persons.^ 

Before  we  examine  the  grounds  on  which  the  belief  rests  that 
there  was  but  one  woman,  and  she  Mary  of  B.,  let  us  examine  the 
statement  in  Luke  (vii.  37).  And  first,  the  right  reading.  In  the 
received  text  it  reads  'yvirq  ev  ry  w6\ei  tJtis  r)v  dfiapr ojXSs,  and  is  translated 
"a  woman  in  the  city,  which  was  a  sinner"  ;  in  W.  and  H.,  ywrj 
7}Tis  T)v  ev  TTj  Tr6Xet  dfj.apTu\6s,  translated  in  the  R.  V.,  "a  woman  which 
was  in  the  city,  a  sinner."  Accepting  the  last  as  the  true  reading,  the 
natural  construction  is,  that  she  was  a  woman  residing  in  the  city 
where  Jesus  then  was;  and  her  character  is  marked  by  the  word 
"sinner,"  which,  we  can  scarce  doubt,  indicates  here  a  woman  of  un- 
chaste life.  This  has  been  the  very  general  belief  from  earliest  times. 
It  is  said  by  Maldonatus  :  "  Constans  omnium  veterum  auctorum  opinio 
est  fuisse  meretricem  " ;  and  this  is  generally  accepted  by  recent  com- 
mentators. 

If,  then,  the  Lord  was  anointed  twice  by  the  same  woman,  the 
sinner   of   Luke  must   have   been   Mary   the    sister  of  Martha   and 


1  Among  those  in  recent  times  wlio  have  maintained  only  one  anointing  are  Light- 
loot,  Grotius,  Evvald,  Bleek,  llungstenberg. 

*  So  of  the  fathers,  Augustine,  Chrysostom.  Of  the  moderns,  Meyer,  Rob.,  Elli 
cott,  Caspari,  Ebrard,  Godet,  Edersheim,  Friedlieb,  Farrar,  Gardiner. 

3  So  Origen,  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  and  others.    See  Friedlieb,  438. 


284  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

Lazaius.  (Jolin  xi.  2;  xii.  3.)  And  this  is  the  belief  of  the  Latin 
church,  at  least  since  Gregory  (604  A.  D.),  and  is  affirmed  by  most  of 
its  commentators  and  harmonists.  (So  Maldonatus  and  a  Xapide, 
but  contra^  Friedlieb.) 

But  on  what  grounds  are  we  to  identify  the  two?  There  is  noth- 
ing in  the  narrative  that  points  to  it.  If  there  were  two  anointings, 
one  in  Bethany  and  one  in  Galilee,  how  do  we  explain  the  presence 
of  Mary  of  B.  at  both?  If  leading  an  impvu-e  life  in  Galilee,  when 
and  why  did  she  transfer  her  residence  to  Bethany?  The  explanation 
usually  given  sujDposes  that  there  was  but  one  Simon,  a  leper  whom 
the  Lord  had  healed,  that  he  lived  at  Bethany,  that  Martha,  Mary, 
and  Lazarus  lived  at  Magdala  in  Galilee,  that  Simon  married 
Martha,  that  Mary  was  unchaste,  but  lived  with  her  sister,  that  she 
first  met  the  Lord  at  Bethany  at  the  house  of  her  brother-in-law,  and 
there  anointed  Him,  and  afterward  anointed  Him  again  before  His 
passion.  (So  in  substance  the  Latins;  Hengstenberg  gives  a  some- 
what different  version.)  For  all  this  there  is  no  historical  basis. 
All  depends  upon  a  supposed  relationship  of  Simon  to  the  family  of 
Martha  and  Mary,  either  of  marriage  or  of  blood.  The  variations  of 
this  tradition,  as  that  this  Simon  lived  first  in  Galilee,  that  there  Mary 
his  relative  had  free  entrance  to  his  house,  and  there  anointed 
the  Lord,  that  he  afterwards  settled  in  Bethany,  and  that  she  repeated 
the  anointing  there,  are  all  equally  unsupported. 

To  the  identification  of  Mary  of  Bethany  with  the  sinful  woman, 
it  may  be  replied,  {a)  that  the  woman  mentioned  by  Luke  is  not 
called  Mary,  and  therefore  the  woman  mentioned  by  John  is  sufficiently 
distinguished  from  her  by  the  name,  while  the  fact  of  the  anointing 
is  used  by  him  to  distinguish  this  Mary  from  others  of  the  same 
name;  and  {b)  that  the  objection  is  of  weight  only  in  case  the  anoint- 
ing mentioned  by  Luke  as  occurring  in  Galilee  is  the  same  with  the 
one  mentioned  by  John  as  occurring  in  Jerusalem,  an  identification 
on  other  grounds  improbable. 

We  do  not,  then,  find  any  ground  to  identify  the  sinful  woman  of 
Galilee  with  Mary  of  Bethany.  Of  the  former  we  know  absolutely 
nothing,  neither  her  name,  nor  her  family  or  friends,  nor  even  her  city. 
But  Mary  never  appears  anywhere  else  but  in  Bethany,  her  relatives  are 
always  mentioned;  and  our  Christian  feeling  is  wounded  when  we 
are  asked  to  believe  that  one,  so  highly  commended  by  the  Lord, 
had  led  a  notoriously  wicked  life.  It  is  true,  she  is  said  by  the 
advocates  of  this  identity  to  have  repented,  tunc  peccatrix  fuernt,  nunc 
sancta;  but  the  shame  of  her  earlier  life  must  have  remained  in  the 
memories  of  all. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  the  woman  a  sinner  and  iMary  of  B.  were 


Part  IV.]      MARY   M.    NOT   THE   SINFUL   WOMAN.  285 

distinct  persons ;  the  former  anointed  the  Lord  in  Galilee  during  His 
ministry  there,  the  latter  in  Bethany  when  His  ministry  had  come  to 
its  close. 

But  another  question  meets  us:  Can  the  sinful  woman  of  Galilee 
be  identified  with  Mary  Magdalene?  It  has  been  the  general  opinion 
of  the  Latin  Church,  at  least  since  Gregory  I. ,  that  Mary  of  B.  and  the 
sinful  woman  and  Mary  M.  are  all  one  and  the  same;  we  must,  there- 
fore, also  ask  what  we  know  of  Mary  M.  It  is  generally  accepted 
that  she  was  so  called  from  Magdala,  a  town  on  the  sea  of  Galilee.' 
She  is  mentioned  by  Luke  (viii.  2)  as  one  of  the  women  whom  the 
Lord  had  "healed  of  evil  spirits  and  infirmities;  Mary  called  Magda- 
lene, out  of  whom  went  seven  devils."  Only  once  again  is  she  spoken 
of  in  this  way  (Mark  xvi.  9) ;  in  all  other  cases,  fourteen  in  number, 
she  is  called  Mary  Magdalene,  or  simply  Mary,  and  all  later  mention 
of  her  is  in  connection  with  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection. 

This  is  all  we  can  be  said  to  know  of  Mary  M. ,  but  from  the  fact 
that  she  "  ministered  to  the  Lord  of  her  substance,"  the  inference  has 
been  drawn  that  she  had  some  wealth;  and  from  the  position  of  her 
name  before  those  of  Joanna  and  Susanna  (Luke  viii.  3),  and  also 
before  those  who  were  with  her  at  the  cross  (Matt,  xxvii.  56,  and 
elsewhere),  we  may  infer  that  she  was  a  woman  of  rank.  (See  Lard- 
ner,  x.  238.)  But  whether  these  inferences  be  or  be  not  correct,  she 
was  certainly  very  prominent  among  the  disciples.  That  she  was 
ever  an  immoral  woman,  is  not  said,  nor  is  it  implied  in  the  fact  that 
she  had  been  under  the  power  of  evil  spirits.  (See  Trench,  Miracles, 
131.)  A  life  of  unchastity  is  precluded  by  the  place  she  held  in  the 
ranks  of  those  faithful  and  honorable  women  who  followed  the  Lord. 

It  is  hard  to  see  why  Mary  M. ,  of  all  the  women  mentioned  as 
believers,  should  have  been  selected  to  stand  as  the  unknown  sinner. 
How  strong  and  general  this  belief  had  become,  is  seen  in  the 
heading  of  the  chapter  (Luke  vii.)  in  the  A.  V.  of  the  Englisli  Bible: 
"  Our  Lord  showeth  by  occasion  of  Mary  M.  how  He  is  a  friend  to 
sinners;"  and  it  is  now  a  case  of  inseparable  association.  But  the 
early  church  was  by  no  means  unanimous  in  this  identity;  it  was  not 
for  some  centuries  that  it  was  generally  accepted,  and  there  have 
been  many  dissentients.  The  Greek  Church  never  identified  the 
three.  In  the  Apostolic  Comtitutions  (iii.  6),  Mary  of  B.  is  distin- 
guished from  Mary  M. :  "  There  were  with  us  Mary  Magdalene,  and 
Mary  and  Martha,  the  sisters  of  Lazarus,"  and  the  two  have  different 
days  of  commemoration.     In  the  Roman  Church,  the   feast  of  Mary 


1  Lig;htf  oot  attempts  to  identify  Magdala  with  Bethany,  but  on  no  sufficient  ground- 
See  Keland,  88a 


286  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  TV. 

M.  is  on  the  22d  of  July,  and  she  is  identified  with  Mary  of  B.  and 
with  the  sinful  woman.  The  Church  of  England  dropped  this  com- 
memoration in  1552.  (For  a  full  account  of  the  honors  paid 
Mary  M.,  see  Biiiterim,  Denk,  v.  395;  in  favor  of  the  identity  of 
Mary  Magdalene  with  this  sinner,  see  Sepp,  iii.  243;  Oosterzee  in  loco; 
contra,  Meyer,  Winer.  For  a  general  discussion  of  the  point,  see 
Herzog's  Encyc,  vol.  ix.  102.) 

As  there  is  much  confusion  arising  from  the  great  diversity  of 
opinions  respecting  the  number  of  the  women,  and  the  number  of 
the  anointings,  and  their  place  and  time,  a  brief  summary  may  be 
useful. 

I.  Number  of  women  anointing.  First.  Three  women:  1. 
The  unknown  sinner ;  2.  Mary  of  B. ;  3.  Mary  M. ;  Second.  Two 
women:  1.  Mary  of  B. ;  2.  Mary  M.  One  of  these  must  be  the  same 
as  the  unknown  sinner;  (a)  Mary  of  B.  and  the  sinner  the  same;  (b) 
Mary  M.  and  the  sinner  the  same.  Third.  One  woman  only ;  the 
sinful  woman,  Mary  of  B.,  and  Mary  M.,  all  one  and  the  same  person. 

II.  Number  of  anointings.  Fii-st.  Three  anointings,  one  in 
Luke,  one  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  one  in  John.  Second.  Two 
anointings,  one  in  Luke ;  one  in  Matthew,  Mark,  and  John.  Third. 
One  anointing.     All  the  Evangelists  describe  the  same. 

III.  Place  and  time :  if  three  anointings,  one  in  Galilee  during 
the  second  year,  two  in  Bethany  six  days  and  two  days  respectively 
before  the  crucifixion;  if  two  anointings,  either  (a)  one  in  Galilee  dur- 
ing the  second  year,  the  other  in  Bethany  during  Passion  Week,  or 
(&)  both  in  Bethany,  one  six  days,  the  other  two  days  before  the  cru- 
cifixion ;  if  one  anointing,  this  in  Bethany  during  Passion  Week. 


Autumn,   781.     A.  D.  28. 

Returning  to  Capernaum,  the  Lord  heals  one  possessed     Matt.  xii.  22-45. 
with  a  devil,  blind  and  dumb.     The  Pharisees  hereupon    Mark  iii.  22-30. 
charge  Ilim  with  casting  out  devils  by  the  help  of  Beelze- 
bub, and  some,  tempting  Him,  ask  a  sign  from  Heaven. 
He  replies  to  their  charge,  and  while  speaking  it  is  an- 
nounced to  Him  that  His  mother  and  brethren  stand  with-    Matt.  xii.  46-50. 
out,  desiring  to  see  Him.     He  points  to  His  disciples,  and    Luke  viii.  19-21. 
says.  Behold  my  mother  and  my  brethren.  Mark  iii.  31-35. 

There  is  not  a  little  difficulty  in  the  arrangement  of  these 
events.  There  are  two  cases  of  healing  of  dumb  possessed  per- 
sons related  by  Matthew,  first  in  ix.  32,  second  in  xii.  22. 
They  have  much  in  common,  and  at  both  did  the  Pharisees 


Part  IV.]    HEALING  THE  BLIND  AND  DUMB  POSSESSED.     287 

make  the  charge  that  Jesus  cast  out  devils  through  the  prince 
of  the  devils.  There  is,  however,  this  important  difference,  that 
in  the  former  the  possessed  was  dumb  only,  in  the  latter,  both 
dumb  and  bHnd. 

It  has  been  said  by  some,  as  DeWette,  that  these  are  the 
same ;  but  almost  all  make  them  distinct.  (See  Meyer  on 
Matt.  xii.  22.)  Does  Matthew  relate  them  in  the  order  of  their 
occurrence  ?  This  is  not  certain.  He  collects  in  chapters  viii. 
and  ix.  a  number  of  miracles,  but  their  chronological  relations 
he  does  not  define,  and  to  know  when  they  occurred  we  must 
examine  the  attendant  circumstances.  The  healing  of  this 
dumb  man  is  put  as  following  immediately  after  the  heahng 
of  the  blind  men  (ix.  27),  and  this  immediately  after  the  raising 
to  life  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus  (verse  23  ff.).  But  in  the  latter 
case  the  connecting  links  are  too  vague  to  demand  an  immediate 
sequence,  and  perhaps  also  in  the  first.  (See  Trench,  Mir.,  160.) 
The  healing  of  the  blind  and  dumb  possessed  man  is  mentioned 
without  any  clear  indication  of  the  time. 

In  both  these  cases  the  charge  was  made  that  the  Lord  cast 
out  devils  by  the  aid  of  Beelzebub.  To  this  charge  in  ix.  34, 
He  made  no  reply,  so  far  as  is  reported  ;  but  in  xii.  25  He  replied, 
showing  both  its  folly  and  its  wickedness. 

In  Luke  xi.  14  we  find  an  instance  of  the  healing  of  a  dumb 
possessed  man  followed  by  a  like  charge,  and  the  Lord's  reply.  Is 
it  to  be  identified  with  either  of  those  mentioned  by  Matthew  ? 
That  he  is  spoken  of  only  as  dumb  and  not  also  blind,  would 
seem  to  identify  him  with  the  man  in  Matthew  ix.  32;  but  the 
Lord's  reply  in  Luke  is  so  Kke  that  in  Matt.  xii.  25  that  we  seem 
almost  compelled  to  identify  them.  We  have  also  in  Mark  iii. 
22  the  same  charge,  and  a  reply  much  briefer,  but  in  substan- 
tially the  same  words. 

The  arrangement  of  harmonists  as  to  number  of  healings 
and  times  of  occurrence  is  various. 

I.  Those  who  find  three  cases  of  healing  : 
Lightfoot  —  1st,  Matt,  xii.;  2d,  Matt.  ix. ;  3d,  Luke  xi. 
Bengel,  Greswell  —  1st,  Matt.  ix. ;  2d,  Matt.  xii. ;  3d,  Luke  xi. 

II.  Those  who  find  two  cases  : 

Eobinson,  Gardiner,  Friedlieb  —  1st,  Matt,  xii.,  Luke  xi.  ; 
2d,  Matt,  ix. 


288  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  IV. 

Ederslieim  —  ist,  JMutthew  ix.  ;  2d,  Matthew  xii.  ;  Luke 
xi.i 

It  is  very  difficult  to  choose  among  these  several  arrange- 
ments. It  is  remarked  by  Greswell  that  cases  of  dispossession 
were  among  the  earliest  and  commonest  of  the  Saviour's  mira- 
cles; it  is  not,  therefore,  to  be  thought  strange  that  His  replies 
upon  these  different  occasions  should  be  substantially  the  same. 
And  we  are  also  to  remember  that  the  Evangelist  having  once 
given  His  reply,  would  not  repeat  it  unless  some  new  elements 
were  woven  into  it.  It  is  then  not  at  all  improbable  that 
Matthew,  who  simply  mentions  the  charge  in  ix.  34,  should,  in 
xii.  25,  have  brought  together  after  his  manner,  the  sub- 
stance of  all  the  Lord  had  said  in  His  replies.  The  same  may 
be  true  of  the  report  in  Luke.  In  both,  the  demand  of  His 
enemies  for  a  sign  is  mentioned  in  i remediate  connection  with 
their  charge  of  demoniac  help,  and  this  points  strongly  to  their 
identity.  But  while  there  is  much  to  be  said  in  favor  of  this, 
yet  the  probability  is  that  Matthew  and  Luke  refer  to  different 
cases  of  healing  and  give  different  discourses,  that  in  Luke  being 
during  the  last  journey  to  Jerusalem.     (See  Greswell,  ii.  581  ff.) 

Two  points  still  remain.  Is  the  discourse  in  Mark  iii.  23  ff. 
the  same  as  in  Matthew  xii.  25  ?  This  is  most  probable,  Mark 
omitting  the  miracle  which  occasioned  the  charge  against  the 
Lord.  Of  the  healings  in  Matthew,  which  is  to  be  put  first  in 
time  ?  As  we  have  seen,  the  harmonists  are  divided,  but  there 
seem  to  be  less  difficulties  in  putting  the  healing  of  the  blind 
and  dumb  possessed  (Matthew  xii.  22)  before  that  of  the  dumb 
possessed  (Matt.  ix.  32).^ 

The  order  of  events  is  of  importance  only  as  showing  how 
early  in  His  ministry  the  Pharisees  charged  the  Lord  with  being 
aided  by  Beelzebub.  It  is  easily  credible  that  they  brouglit  the 
charge  early,  but  at  first  in  a  reserved  way,  and  afterward 
more  openly. 


1  Krafft  (85)  attempts  to  8how  that  the  discourse  CMatt.  xii.  25-15)  was  not  all 
spoken  at  once,  nor  has  reference  to  the  same  miracle,  but  all  from  \orse  38  on  has 
reference  to  the  miracle  in  Matt.  i.\.    But  this  division  is  arbitrary. 

2  It  has  been  questioned  whether  the  words  (ix.  34):  "But  the  Pharisees  said.  He 
casteth  out  devils  through  the  prince  of  the  devils,"  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  an  inter- 
polation. They  are  put  by  W.  and  H.  iu  brackets,  but  are  kept  by  Tisch.,  and  in  R.  V-, 
and  generally.    See  Eders.,  i.  516. 


Part  IV.]  BLASPHEMY   OF   THE   PHARISEES.  289 

That  the  healing  of  the  dumb  and  bhnd  possessed  man  took 
place  at  Capernaum,  may  be  inferred  from  the  mention  of  "the 
scribes  which  came  down  from  Jerusalem  "  (Mark  iii.  22),  and 
who  would  naturally  seek  Him  in  the  place  of  His  residence. 
Their  presence  at  this  time  may  be  ascribed  to  the  powei-ful  im- 
pression which  the  raising  of  tlie  widow's  son  at  Nain  had  made 
upon  all  who  heard  of  it,  and  the  consequent  necessity  on  the. 
part  of  His  enemies  of  taking  some  steps  to  counteract  it.  The 
cure  of  the  possessed,  it  is  said,  amazed  the  people,  and  led  them 
to  ask,  "Is  not  this  the  Son  of  David  ?  "  So  far  as  we  know, 
this  was  the  first  time  that  this  specially  Messianic  title  had  been 
given  Him ;  nor  does  it  clearly  appear  what  there  was  in  this 
miracle  that  should  lead  them  thus  to  speak.  It  would,  how- 
ever, naturally  arouse  the  jealousy  of  the  Pharisees,  and  make 
them  the  more  eager  to  oppose  Him.  As  the  fact  of  the  heal- 
ing was  beyond  dispute,  they  could  only  assert  that  it  was  done 
through  the  aid  of  the  prince  of  the  devils.  This  ascription  of 
His  miracles  to  Satanic  agency  marks  a  decided  progress  in 
Pharisaic  hostility.  Heretofore  they  had  said  of  Him  that  He 
was  a  Sabbath  breaker  and  a  blasphemer  ;  now  they  say  that  He 
is  in  league  with  evil  spirits.  And  this  charge  reached  much 
farther  than  to  this  particular  miracle.  It  was  virtually  ascribing 
all  that  He  said  and  did  to  a  diabolical  origin,  and  made  the 
Spirit  of  God  that  rested  upon  Him  to  be  the  spirit  of  Beelze- 
bub ;  and  hence  the  severity  of  His  language  in  reply  (Matt.  xii. 
34).  To  understand  this  charge  of  the  Phai"isees,  we  must  re- 
member the  common  belief  of  the  day,  that  miracles  could  be 
wrought  by  the  help  of  evil  spirits;  and  that  therefore  the 
possession  of  miraculous  power  did  not  prove  that  a  man  was 
sent  from  God.  It  was  necessary  for  the  Lord's  enemies  to  ex- 
plain His  many  mighty  works;  for  if  lie  did  them  by  the  help 
of  God,  there  was  no  alternative  but  to  receive  Ilim  and  His 
teachings.  The  only  way  of  escape  was  to  ascribe  His  miracles 
to  the  powers  of  darkness.  Aside  from  the  folly  of  supposing 
that  Satan  would  cast  out  Satan,  there  was  the  blasphemy 
against  the  Holy  Ghost  in  ascribing  works  wrought  by  His  help, 
and  manifestly  good,  to  the  prince  of  the  demons.' 

1  Those  who  wish  to  see  how  a  modem  Jew  defends  the  iiciion  of  the  Pharisees 
and  Scribes,  will  find  a  defense  of  them  in  Cohen,  Les  Deicides,  39  fiE.    The  writer  leaves 
13 


290  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

It  appears  from  Mark  (iii.  22),  that  those  who  made  this 
charge  were  the  scribes  which  came  down  from  Jerusalem. 
Luke  (xi.  15)  uses  the  indefinite  expression,  "  some  of  them  said." 
Matthew  (xii.  24)  refers  it  to  the  Pharisees.  (In  Mark  ii.  16  R. 
V.  "  The  scribes  of  the  Pharisees  "  are  spoken  of  ;  in  Luke  v.  30, 
"The  Pharisees  and  their  scribes."  While  the  scribes  were  gen- 
erally of  the  Pharisaic  party,  there  were  some  of  the  Sadducees. 
Schiirer,  ii.  1.  313.)  These  scribes  were  doubtless  themselves 
Pharisees,  possibly  also  priests  or  Levites.  Alexander  remarks: 
"It  is  a  serious  error  to  suppose  that  these  descriptive  titles 
are  exclusive  of  each  other,  and  denote  so  many  independ- 
ent classes,  whereas  they  only  denote  different  characters  or 
relations,  which  might  all  meet  in  one  and  the  same  person, 
as  being  at  the  same  time  a  priest  and  Levite  by  descent  and 
sacred  oflBce,  a  scribe  by  profession,  and  a  Pharisee  in  sentiment 
and  party  connection."  But  although  originally  the  priests  were 
scribes,  as  Ezra  (Neh.  viii.  9),  yet  at  this  period  the  scribes 
made  a  distinct  class.  It  is  not  improbable  that  they  came  as 
a  formal  deputation  to  watch  His  proceedings,  and  to  organize 
His  enemies  against  Him  throughout  Galilee.  Doubtless  their 
calumny,  that  He  was  aided  by  Beelzebub,  was  caught  up  and 
reiterated  by  the  Pharisees  of  Capernaum. 

The  visit  of  His  mother  and  brethren  is  mentioned  by  all  the 
Synoptists;  and  that  it  occurred  during,  or  immediately  after, 
the  reply  to  the  Pharisees,  appears  from  Matt.  xii.  46.  Luke 
(viii.  19)  has  it  in  another  connection,  but  without  any  note  of 
time.  We  distinguish  it  from  the  visit  of  His  friends  (Mark  iii. 
21),  which  took  place  soon  after  the  choice  of  Apostles,  and  of 
which  we  have  already  spoken.  We  cannot  tell  where  His 
mother  and  brethren  were  at  this  time  residing  ;  some  say  at 
Cana,  others  at  Nazareth,  others  at  Capernaum.  The  Roman 
Catholic  writers  in  general  attempt  to  separate  His  mother  from 
His  brethren,  as  not  acting  with  them.  (See  Maldonatus  on  Mark 
iii.  3 1 .)  It  is  evident  that  Mary  and  His  brethren  were  presuming 
too  much  on  their  near  relationship  to  Him;  and  that  He  wished 
to  teach  them  that,  when  engaged  in  His  Father's  work,  merely 


it  uncertain  whether  the  Lord  really  wrought  miracles,  or  only  pretended  so  to  do  ;  nor 
does  he  mention  the  fact  that  the  Jews  believed  them  to  be  real,  but  attributed  them  to  evil 
spirits.    As  to  Jewish  belief  respecting  miracles,  see  Eders.,  i.  574. 


Part  IV.]  FIRST  TEACHING  IN  PARABLES.  291 

human  bonds  must  give  place  to  higher  obligations.  Mary  here 
showed  the  same  spirit  that  twice  before  He  had  gently  rebuked 
(Luke  ii.  49  ;  John  ii.  4). 

Autumn,  781.     A.D.  28. 

The  same  da}'  He  leaves  His  house  and  sits  by  the  sea-  Matt.  xiii.  1-52. 

side,  and  as  the  multitudes  .gather  to  Him,  He  enters  a  ship,  Mark  iv.  1-34. 

and  teaches  them  in  parables.     At  the  close  of  the  day,  He  Luke  viii.  4-18. 

gives  commandment  to  depart  to  the  other  side.     As  they  Matt.  viii.  18-27. 

are    preparing   to  go.  He    holds  a  conversation    with  a  Luke  ix.  57-60. 

scribe,  and  with  one  of  His  disciples  about  following  Him.  Mark  iv.  35-41. 

He  enters  the  ship  with  the  disciples,  and  crosses  the  sea.  Luke  viii.  22-25. 
Upon  the  way  a  violent  tempest  arises,  Jesus  rebukes  the 
wind  and  waves,  and  there  is  a  great  calm. 

There  is  no  reason  why  the  language  of  Matthew  "in  the 
same  day"  —  ev  ry  '^fiepa  eK.eivij  —  should  not  here  be  taken 
strictly,  although  sometimes  used  indefinitely  (Acts  viii.  1).  It 
was  the  same  day  as  that  on  which  His  mother  and  brethren 
visited  Him,  and  on  which  He  healed  the  blind  and  dumb  pos- 
sessed. Mark  (iv.  1)  has  the  same  order.  Luke  (viii.  4-19) 
narrates  the  teaching  in  parables  before  His  mother's  visit. 
"Whether  the  narration  of  the  two  who  would  follow  Him  (Matt, 
viii.  19-22),  is  the  same  as  that  mentioned  by  Luke  (ix.  57-60), 
v/ho  speaks  of  three  ;  and  whether  we  are  to  follow  the  order  of 
Matthew  or  Luke,  will  be  considered  when  the  Lord's  last  jour- 
ney is  examined. 

It  is  a  question  whether  all  the  parables  given  by  Matthew 
(xiii.)  were  spoken  at  once,  and  if  not,  when  and  where  ?  Mark, 
although  he  gives  only  those  of  the  sower  and  the  mustard  seed, 
implies  that  there  were  others  (iv.  2):  "And  He  taught  them 
many  things  by  parables,"  language  almost  the  same  as  that  of 
Matthew  (xiu.  3):  "And  He  spake  many  things  unto  them  in 
parables."  After  He  had  spoken  the  parable  of  the  sower,  it  is 
said  (Matt.  xiii.  10)  that  His  disciples  came  to  ask  Him  why 
He  spake  in  parables.  Mark  (iv.  10)  says:  "When  He  was 
alone,  they  tliat  were  about  Him  with  the  Twelve  asked  of 
Him  the  parable."  Whether  He  was  yet  in  the  ship,  or  had 
gone  to  the  shore,  does  not  appear.  Greswell  attempts  to  show 
that  the  disciples  did  not  ask  any  explanation  of  the  parable  of 


V 


393  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

tlie  sower  at  this  time,  but  only  why  He  spake  in  parables  at 
all.  Afterward,  when  He  had  gone  into  the  house  (Matt.  xiii. 
36),  they  asked  Him  the  meaning  of  this  particular  parable,  and 
also  of  that  of  the  tares.  This  involves  more  difficulties  than  it 
removes.  Krafft  makes  the  teaching  in  parables  to  have  occu- 
pied at  least  two  days.  (See  Luke  viii.  22,  who  makes  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  day  of  the  visit  of  His  mother  and  brethren, 
and  that  when  He  spake  the  parable  of  the  sower.)  In  this 
case,  Mark  (iv.  35)  refers  not  to  the  day  when  He  went  down 
to  the  seaside,  but  to  the  day  following.  Stier  supposes  the 
seven  parables  of  Matthew  to  have  been  spoken  on  one  day: 
the  first  four  to  the  people  on  the  shore,  the  last  three  to  the  dis- 
ciples in  the  house.  (So  Keil.)  Trench  remarks:  ''The  first  four 
were  spoken  to  the  multitude  while  He  taught  them  out  of  the 
ship;  the  three  last  on  the  same  day  in  the  narrow  circle  of  His 
disciples  at  His  own  house."  After  several  parables  had  been 
spoken,  there  was  a  pause  (Mark  iv.  10;  Matt.  xiii.  10),  and 
then  the  questions  following  were  asked. 

It  must  remain  doubtful  whether  this  teaching  in  parables 
did  not  occupy  more  than  one  day.  If,  however,  we  Hmit  it  to 
one,  we  may  give  the  following  order  of  events  as  a  probable 
one.  After  Jesus  had  spoken  the  parable  of  the  sower.  He 
paused  for  a  while,  perhaps  to  give  His  hearers  time  to  refl.ect 
upon  it.  During  this  interval,  the  Twelve  and  other  disciples 
asked  Him,  first,  why  He  taught  in  parables;  and  second,  what 
this  parable  was?  Where  these  questions  were  asked,  is  uncer- 
tain. Two  circumstances  onlj'' define  it:  that  "He  was  alone" 
(Mark  iv.  10),  or  separated  from  the  multitude;  and  that  "the 
disciples  came  to  Him"  (Matt.  xiii.  10).  All  this  may  have 
taken  place  while  He  was  still  in  the  boat,  in  which  with  Him 
were  doubtless  the  Twelve,  and  othei's  may  have  joined  them. 
By  withdrawing  a  little  way  from  the  shore,  they  would  be 
strictly  alone.  Greswell  (ii.  440)  objects  that  the  multitude 
could  not  be  called  "those  that  are  without"  (Mark  iv.  11), 
unless  Jesus  and  the  disciples  were  somewhere  within,  that  is, 
in  a  house;  but  the  distinction  is  not  one  of  locality,  Irat  of 
moral  preparedness.  After  His  explanations  to  the  disciples. 
Jesus  again   teaches  the  people,  and  adds  the  parables  of  the 


Part  IV.]      JESUS   CROSSES   THE   SEA   OF   GALILEE.  293 

tares  and  wheat,  the  mustard  seed,  and  the  leaven.  At  this 
point,  dismissing  the  multitude,  He  returns  to  His  house,  and 
His  disciples  coming  to  Him,  He  expounds  to  them  the  tares 
and  wheat,  and  adds  the  parables  of  the  hid  treasure,  the  pearl, 
and  the  net.  Going  again  at  even  to  the  shore,  and  the  multi- 
tudes gathering  around  Him,  He  gives  order  to  pass  to  the  other 
side.  The  disciples,  therefore,  send  away  the  people,  and  take 
Him  as  He  is  in  the  ship.' 

This  teaching  in  parables  plainly  marks  an  onward  step  in 
the  Lord's  ministry.  He  had  now  testified  of  Himself  both  in 
word  and  deed,  had  manifested  Himself  as  the  Messiah  ;  and  it 
was  becoming  apparent  to  Him  that  the  great  body  of  the  peo- 
ple had  no  discernment  of  His  divine  character  and  mission,  and 
would  not  receive  Him,  however  they  might  for  a  time  be  per- 
sonally attracted  to  Him,  and  marvel  at  His  words  and  works. 
The  Pharisees,  the  spiritual  leaders,  both  at  Jerusalem  and  in 
Galilee,  had  not  only  taken  decided  steps  against  Him,  but  had 
accused  Him  of  being  helped  in  His  work  by  Beelzebub.  This 
utter  spiritual  incapacity  to  see  the  true  nature  of  His  teachings 
and  acts,  and  the  determined  hostility  which  it  manifested, 
^liowed  Him  that  the  time  had  come  when  He  must  change  the 
form  of  His  speech,  and  not  expose  the  holy  things  of  God  to 
reproach.  Though  with  the  common  people  His  popularity 
seemed  now  at  its  height.  He  discerned  that  there  was  no  root 
of  faith,  and  that  most  followed  Him  through  motives  of  won- 
der or  idle  curiosity.  He  could,  therefore,  well  speak  of  them 
(Matt.  xiii.  13-15)  as  hearing  His  words,  and  yet  not  understand- 
ing them;  as  seeing  His  works,  and  not  perceiving  their  signifi- 
cance. To  them  He  could  not  explain  the  mysteries  of  the 
kingdom.  He  must  use  the  form  of  the  parable  which,  hiding 
its  meaning  from  the  careless  ami  foolish,  opened  it  to  the  dili- 
gent and  wise  seeker  after  truth.  As  is  well  said  by  Thiersch 
(Parables):  "These  parables  are  of  the  nature  of  warnings  to  the 
disciples,  and  contain  also  great  promises  and  mysteries  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  The  Lord  declared  these  warnings  and 
prophecies  purposely  in  obscure  language,  in  order  to  hide  their 
meaning  from  blasphemers  and  skeptics,  whose  anger  He  was 


1  SeeNewcome,  Har.,  25G. 


294  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  IV. 

unwilling  to  excite;  and  yet  so  as  to  confirm  the  faith  of  His 
disciples,  to  whom  He  explained  all  things."  To  the  same 
effect  Abp.  Thomson  styles  a  parable,  "  a  mode  for  keeping  the 
seed  safe  till  the  time  should  arrive  for  the  quickening  spirit  to 
come  down  and  give  it  growth." 

The  motive  of  the  Lord  in  crossing  the  lake  is  not  stated, 
but  apparently  it  was  to  escape  the  crowds,  never  satisfied  with 
hearing  Him,  and  to  find  rest  (Matt.  viii.  18).  His  disciples 
"took  Him  as  He  was  in  the  ship,"  or  without  any  preparation 
for  the  journey;  which  implies  that  it  was  not  premeditated,  but 
suddenly  determined  on  (Mark  iv.  36).  It  was  "even,"  prob- 
ably near  sundown,  when  they  left  the  shore,  and  wearied  by 
the  labors  of  the  day  the  Lord  soon  fell  asleep.  While  thus 
sleeping  a  fierce  storm  burst  upon  them.  How  exposed  is  the 
Sea  of  Galilee,  from  its  peculiar  position,  to  these  storms,  all 
travellers  have  remarked ;  but  few  have  had  any  personal  ex- 
perience of  their  fury.  Thomson  (ii.  32),  however,  was  for 
several  days  upon  its  shores  during  one  of  them,  the  character 
of  which  he  thus  describes  :  "To  understand  the  causes  of  these 
sudden  and  violent  tempests  we  must  remember  that  the  lake 
lies  low,  six  hundred  feet  lower  than  the  ocean  ;  that  the  vast 
and  naked  plateaus  of  the  Jaulan  rise  to  a  great  height,  spread- 
ing backwards  to  the  wilds  of  the  Hauran,  and  upward  to  snowy 
Hermon;  that  the  water  courses  have  cut  out  profound  ravines,  and 
wild  gorges  converging  to  the  head  of  the  lake,  and  that  these 
act  like  gigantic  funnels  to  draw  down  the  cold  winds  from  the 
mountains.  And,  moreover,  these  winds  are  not  only  violent, 
but  they  come  down  suddenly,  and  often  when  the  sky  is  perfectly 
clear.  I  once  went  in  to  swim  near  the  hot  baths,  and  before  I 
was  aware,  a  wind  came  rushing  over  the  cliffs  with  such  force 
that  it  was  with  great  diflSculty  I  could  regain  the  shore."  Of 
another  storm,  when  on  the  eastern  shore,  he  says:  "  The  sun 
had  scarcely  set  when  the  wind  began  to  rush  down  toward  the 
lake,  and  it  continued  all  night  long  with  constantly  increasing 
violence,  so  that  when  we  reached  the  shore  next  morning,  the 
face  of  the  lake  was  like  a  huge  boiling  caldron."  "We  had 
to  double-pin  all  the  tent  ropes,  and  frequently  were  obliged  to 
hang  with  our  whole  weight  xipon  them  to  keep  the  quivering 


Part  IV'.]  THE   DEMONIACS  AT   GERGESA.  295 

tabernacle  from  being  carried   off  bodily  into  the  air."     (See 
Wilson,  Bib.  Ed.,  iii.  284.) 

The  attempts  to  determine  at  what  season  of  the  year  the 
parables  were  spoken  through  the  natural  analogies  upon  which 
they  are  based,  as  Norton  inferred  that  it  was  seed-time,  or 
about  November,  because  of  the  reference  to  the  sowing  of  seed, 
lead  to  no  substantial  result.  So  also  the  storm  does  not,  as 
said  by  him,  define  the  time  as  winter;  or  as  an  equinoctial 
quarter  of  the  year,  as  said  by  Greswell.  That  it  was  during  the 
late  autumn  or  early  winter,  is  upon  other  groimds  probable. 

Autumn,  781.     A.  D.  ^.8. 

After  the  stilliug  of  tlie  tempest,  He  comes  to  the  c  jun-    Matt.  viii.  28-34. 
trj-  of  the  Gergesenes.    As  He  lands,  He  is  met  by  two    Mark  v.  1-18. 
men    possessed   by  demons,  whose    dwelling    is   in    the    Luke  viii.  26-39. 
tombs  near  by.     Beholding  Jesus,  they  run  to  meet  Him, 
and  He,  casting  out  the  demons,  permits  them  to  enter  a 
herd  of  swine  that  is  feeding  near.     The  swine,  so  pos- 
sessed, run  down  the  hill-side  into  the  sea  and  perish,  and 
the  inhabitants,  coming  to  Him,  desire  Him  to  depart  from 
their  coasts.     After  directing  the  healed  demoniacs  to  pro-    Mark  v.  19,  20. 
claim  through  Decapolis  what  had  been  done  for  them.  He    Matt.  ix.  1. 
returns  to  Capernaum. 

Several  questions  meet  us  here.  First,  as  to  the  time  when 
the  Lord  reached  Gergesa.  He  left  Capernaum,  as  we  are 
told  in  Mark,  "when  the  even  was  come";  that  He  reached  the 
opposite  shore  while  it  was  broad  daylight,  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  the  demoniacs  "saw  Jesus  afar  off."  Was  this  on  the 
evening  of  the  day,  or  the  next  morning  ?  It  is  said  by  Eders- 
heim  (i,  606)  that  He  landed  on  the  east  shore  late  in  the  even- 
ing: "All  the  circumstances  lead  us  to  regard  the  healing  of 
the  demonized  at  Gerasa  as  a  night  scene."  If  we  take  "the 
even,"  as  it  is  sometimes  to  be  taken,  as  the  latter  part  of  the 
afternoon,  or  from  three  to  six  o'clock,  the  Lord  may  have 
reached  Gergesa,  notwithstanding  the  storm,  before  sundown. 
But  it  may  have  been  that  the  departure  was  later,  during  the 
second  evening  —  six  to  nine  —  and  that,  delayed  by  the  storm, 
the  landing  on  the  east  shore  was  not  till  the  next  morning. 
This  is  the  more  general  view,  and  seems  to  find  confirmation 
in   the    fact    that   the    Lord    was    asleep.      Greswell    (ii.   204), 


29G  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  IV. 

thinks  that  the  Lord  did  not  sail  till  after  sunset;  that  He  spent 
the  night  on  the  lake,  and  landed  on  the  east  side  in  the  early 
morning.     (See  also  ii.  338.) 

Another  question  concerns  the  place  where  the  Lord  met  the 
demoniacs.  As  this  has  been  much  discussed,  a  brief  statement 
of  the  points  in  dispute  must  be  made. 

The  first  point  is  to  determiue  the  reading.  Three  places,  or  dis- 
tricts, are  mentioned:  the  country  —  x'^pa  —  of  the  Gadarenes,  of  the 
Gergesenes,  and  of  the  Gerasenes.  In  the  Textus  receptus,  Matthew 
(viii.  28)  has  "  of  the  Gergesenes;  "  but  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.,  and  R.  V., 
"of  the  Gadarenes";  Mark  (v.  1)  has  "of  the  Gadarenes";  but  Tisch., 
■\V.  and  H.,  and  R.  V.,  "of  the  Gerasenes";  Luke  (viii.  26)  has 
"  of  the  Gadarenes";  but  W.  and  II.  and  R.  V.,  "of  the  Gerasenes"; 
Tisch.,  Keil,  and  Riddle,  "of  Ui.  Gergesenes".  We  have  thus  three 
plr.ces  before  us:  Gadara,  Gerasa,  and  Gergesa,  and  we  must  ask 
what  knowledge  we  have  of  their  positions.  Gadara  is  mentioned 
by  Josephus  (War,  iv.  7.  3)  as  the  capital  of  Pergea,  and  as  de- 
stroyed by  Vespasian;  it  is  counted  as  one  of  the  cities  of  the  Decapo- 
lis  (Gasp.,  97;  Schiirer,  ii.  1.  100).  It  is  generally  admitted  that  it 
stood  upon  the  site  now  known  as  Um  Keis,  lying  some  six  or  eight 
miles  southeast  of  the  sea  of  Galilee,  and  three  south  of  the  Yarmuk 
or  ancient  Hieromax  (Thomson,  ii.  35).  It  is  plain  that  Gadara,  if  the 
city  be  meant,  is  too  remote  to  answer  to  the  conditions  of  the  narra- 
tive, for  this  plainly  implies  that  the  place  of  meeting  the  demoniacs 
was  upon  or  near  the  shore.  Mark  (v.  2)  says:  "And  when  He  was 
come  out  of  the  ship,  immediately  there  met  Him  out  of  the  tombs," 
flf.  This  statement  cannot  well  be  understood,  as  observed  by 
Alexander,  otherwise  than  that  He  was  met  "as  He  landed,  not 
merely  after  he  had  done  so,  which  would  admit  of  an  indefinite 
interval ;  whereas  the  landing  and  the  meeting  were  simultaneous, 
or  immediately  successive."  The  narrative,  however,  does  not  say 
tliat  the  event  took  place  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  city  — 
ir6\is  —  but  implies  tlie  contrary  (Matt.  viii.  33). 

Gerasa  is  mentioned  by  Josephus  (War,  iii.  3.  3;  iv.  9.  1)  as  lying 
upon  the  eastern  border  of  Peraea;  and  is  now  known  as  Jerash.  It 
was  one  of  the  chief  cities  of  the  Decapolis,  and  its  ruins  are  among 
the  most  beautiful  and  best  preserved  in  all  Palestine.  (See  Baedeker, 
391,  for  full  description  and  plans.)  It  is  some  twenty  miles  east  of 
the  Jordan,  and  far  distant  from  the  sea  of  Galilee,  and  cannot  be 
meant  as  the  place  where  the  demoniacs  were  met. 

"Gergesenes"  is  the  rendering  of  the  received  text  (Matthew  viii. 


Part  IV.] 


GADARA   AND   GERGESA. 


297 


28),  but  is  now  generally  rejected  on  critical  grounds  as  an  emend- 
ation of  Origen,  and  "  Gadarenes  "  joref erred.  That  there  was  a 
city  called  Gergesa  is  affirmed  by  Origen,  but  his  testimony  has  been 
generally  rejected  as  unsupported  (Godet  on  Luke  viii.  26;    see  Re- 


NORTHEASTERN  PART  OF  THE  SeA  OF  GALILEE  SHOWING  THE  ENTRANCE  OB 

THE  Jordan,  and  the  Site  of  Kersa  or  Gergesa. 

land,  806).  He  places  it  upon  the  Lake  of  Tiberias,  and  near  the 
shore;  and  adds  that  the  precipice  is  still  ])ointed  out  where  the 
swine  rushed  into  the  sea.  Alford  (on  Matt.  viii.  28)  doubts  the' 
existence  of  such  a  city;  but  still  questions  whether  "Gergesenes" 
could,  as  a  mere  conjecture  of  Origen's,  have  fun  ml  its  way  into  so 
13* 


298  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

many  ancient  versions,  and  adopts  it  as  the  true  reading.  (So  Far- 
rar,  354,  note;  McClellan,  650.)  Bleek  thinks  that  Origen's  words 
show  that  there  was  such  a  place  in  his  day,  the  traditional  site  of 
the  miracle,  and  one  answering  to  its  conditions  (see  T.  G.  Lex.,  svh 
voce).  This  seems  to  be  a  fair  statement  of  the  matter,  and  it  is  con- 
firmed by  Eusebius,  who  says  that  in  his  day  a  village  was  shown 
upon  the  mountain  near  Lake  Tiberias,  where  the  swine  ran  down 
(see  also  Jerome;  McClellan,  649;  Raumer,  218  note,  and  331). 
We  may,  then,  accept  as  credible  the  statement  of  Origen,  that  there 
was  in  his  day  a  town  by  the  name  of  Gergesa  near  the  lake,  which 
tradition  made  the  scene  of  the  miracle;  and  the  absence  of  all  later 
mention  of  it  by  name  would  show  only  that  it  had  fallen  into  decay. 
But,  within  a  few  years,  its  site  has  been  re-discovered  under  the  vari- 
ous names,  Kersa,  Chersa,  or  Gersa.  Dr.  Thomson,  (Land  and  Book, 
ii.  25),  to  whom  this  discovery  is  owing,  found  Gersa  near  the  point 
where  Wady  Semak  enters  the  lake,  nearly  opposite  the  plain  of 
Gennesaret.  "In  this  Gersa,  we  have  a  position  which  fulfills  every 
requirement  of  the  narrative,  and  with  a  name  so  near  that  in  Matthew, 
as  to  be  in  itself  a  strong  corroboration  of  the  truth  of  this  identifica- 
tion. It  is  within  a  few  rods  of  the  shore,  and  an  immense  mountain 
rises  directly  above  it,  in  which  are  ancient  tombs,  out  of  some  of 
which  the  two  men  possessed  of  the  devils  may  have  issued  to  meet 
Jesus.  The  lake  is  so  near  the  base  of  the  mountain  that  the  swine, 
rushing  madly  down  it  could  not  stop,  but  would  be  hurried  on  into 
the  water  and  drowned.  The  place  is  one  which  our  Lord  would  be 
likely  to  visit,  having  Capernaum  in  full  view  to  the  north,  and  Gali- 
lee '  over  against  it,'  as  Luke  says  it  was  (viii.  26).  The  name,  how- 
ever, pronounced  by  Bedawin  Arabs,  is  so  similar  to  Gergesa,  that,  to 
all  my  inquiries  for  this  place,  they  invariably  said  it  was  at  Chersa, 
and  they  insisted  that  they  were  identical,  and  I  agree  with  them  in 
this  opinion."  Here  Dr.  T.  found  some  ruins.  "It  was  a  small 
place,  but  the  walls  can  be  traced  all  around,  and  there  seems  to 
have  been  considerable  suburbs."  Col.  Wilson  (Recovery  of  Jer., 
286)  says:  "  On  the  left  bank  of  Wady  Semak,  and  at  the  point  where 
the  hills  end  and  the  plain  stretches  out  toward  the  lake,  are  the 
ruins  of  Khersa  — Gergesa.  The  site  is  enclosed  by  a  wall  three  feet 
thick.  The  remains  are  not  of  much  importance.  .  .  .  On  the 
shore  of  the  lake  are  a  few  ruined  buildings,  to  which  the  same  name 
was  given  by  the  Bedawin.  About  a  mile  south  of  this,  the  hills, 
which  everywhere  else  on  the  eastern  side  are  recessed  from  half  to 
three-quarters  of  a  mile  from  the  water's  edge,  approach  within  forty 
feet  of  it ;  they  do  not  terminate  abruptly,  but  there  is  a  steep  even 


fart  IV.]  SITE   OP   GERGESA.  209 

slope,  which  we  would  identify  with  the  '  steep  place '  down  which 
the  lierd  of  swine  ran  violently  into  the  sea,  and  so  were  choked." 
Schumacher  (The  Jaulan,  Qt.  St.  1888,  179)  says:  "  The  remains  date 
from  two  periods,  a  more  ancient  one,  from  which  only  scattered 
building  stones  and  foundations  are   still  extant;  and  a  more  recent 

one,  i^robably  Roman The  ruins  are  extended,  and  it  is 

thought  that  traces  of  aqueducts  can  be  distinguished."  Merrill 
places  Kersa  six  miles  south  from  the  entrance  of  the  Jordan  into  the 
lake. 

Thus  one  chief  condition  of  the  miracle  is  fully  satisfied.  There 
is  a  short  strip  of  the  coast,  and  only  one  on  the  east  side,  where  the 
mountain  is  so  near  the  water,  that  the  herd  rushing  down  would 
plunge  into  the  lake.  That  there  should  be  herds  of  swine  in  this 
region  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  population  was  in  great  part 
heathen  and  not  Jewish.  Schiirer,  speaking  of  Gadara,  says:  "  There 
is  abundant  evidence  that  it  was  already  in  pre-Christian  times,  a 
flourishing  Hellenistic  town  "  (Joseph.,  Autiq.,  vii.  11.  4).  The  Jews, 
living  in  such  a  community,  might  breed  them  for  sale,  if  they 
did  not  themselves  eat  them.  It  is  said  by  Pressense,  that  "they 
carried  on  without  scruple  a  forbidden  traffic,  keeping  herds  of 
swine  on  their  hills."  And  here  good  feeding  ground  was  found. 
Of  the  hill-sides  at  Gergesa,  McGregor  says :  "A  verdant  sward  is 
herewith  many  bulbous  fruits,  which  swine  might  feed  upon;  and 
here  I  saw  a  very  large  herd  of  oxen,  horses,  camels,  sheep,  asses, 
and  goats,  all  feeding  together." 

Other  conditions  are  also  met.  There  are  natural  cavities  in  the 
rocks  which  might  serve  well  for  tombs.  Schumacher  (179)  says: 
"The  lime  rocks  of  the  neighborhood  have  several  large  natural 
cavities,  especially  on  the  lower  ruin  over  the  slope."  Although  Sir 
C.  Wilson  did  not  see  any  rock-hewn  tombs  near  Kersa,  yet  he  thinks 
that  the  demoniacs  may  have  lived  in  the  tombs  built  above  ground, 
such  as  are  still  seen  at  Tell  Hum,  and  of  which  he  saw  some  traces 
not  far  from  the  shore.  But  Thomson  says  that  "an  immense 
mountain  lies  directly  above  Kersa,  in  which  are  ancient  tombs." 

There  is  also  the  steep  descent  or  slope,  not  a  cliff  or  precipice, 
which  the  word  —  Kp-q/xvds  —  does  not  mean.  It  is  possible  that 
it  may  refer  to  the  peculiar  formation  of  the  beach  for  half  a 
mile  in  length,  which  is  thus  described  by  McGregor  (411):  "It  is 
flat  until  close  to  the  edge.  There  a  hedge  of  oleanders  fringes  the 
end  of  the  plain,  and  immediately  below  these  is  a  gravel  beach,  in- 
clined so  steep  that,  when  my  boat  was  at  the  shore,  I  could  not  see 
over  the  top  even  by  standing  up;  while  the  water  along-side  is  so 


300  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV 

deep  that  it  covered  my  paddle  (seven  feet  long)  when  dipped  in 
vertically  a  few  feet  from  the  shore." 

Thus  the  miracle  finds  abundant  confirmation  in  all  its  local 
details.  Just  at  the  point  where  all  other  conditions  of  the  narrative 
are  met,  we  find  the  ruins  of  a  town  known  to  the  Bedawin  as  Kersa, 
and  this  is  now  generally  accepted  as  the  place  of  the  miracle.  The 
real  difficulty,  as  long  since  said  by  Wieseler,  is  to  reconcile  the  varia- 
tions of  the  text.  But  into  this  we  are  not  called  to  enter. 
Whether  Kersa  can  be  derived  from  Gergesa  {contra,  Riehm,  i.  454) 
or  must  represent  Gerasa  (Edersheim,  i.  607),  or  whether  the  place  was 
anciently  called  Gergesa,  and  afterwards  Gerasa  (McClellan),  we  must 
leave  to  the  philologist. 

We  may  picture  the  scene  in  Thomson's  words:  "Take  your 
stand  a  little  south  of  this  Chersa.  A  great  herd  of  swine,  we  will 
suppose,  is  feeding  on  this  mountain  that  towers  above  it.  They  are 
seized  with  a  sudden  panic,  rush  madly  down  the  almost  perpendicular 
declivity,  those  behind  tumbling  over  and  thrusting  forward  those  be- 
fore, and,  as  there  is  neither  time  nor  space  to  recover  on  the  narrow^ 
shelf  between  the  base  and  the  lake,  they  are  crowded  headlong  into 
the  ^7ater,  and  perish.  All  is  perfectly  natural  just  at  this  point, 
and  here,  I  suppose,  it  did  actually  occur." 

This  discovery  of  the  site  of  Gergesa  removes  all  topograph- 
ical difficulties  from  the  sacred  narratives.  It  is  therefore  un- 
necessary to  mention  in  detail  the  other  solutions  that  have  been 
proposed,  as  that  of  Ebrard  (324),  who,  in  answer  to  DeWette, 
attempts  to  show  that  Gadara  was  but  an  hour  distant  from  the 
sea;  and  that  of  Stanley  (372)  who  places  the  scene  of  these 
events  in  Wady  Feik,  nearly  opposite  Tiberias. 

"We  may  then  thus  picture  this  incident  to  ourselves.  The 
Lord,  leaving  Capernaum  at  even  to  avoid  the  ever-tlironging 
multitude,  directs  his  course  southeasterly  toward  Gergesa. 
The  storm  bursting  suddenly  upon  them  during  the  evening. 
He  by  His  word  calms  the  sea.  Very  early  in  the  morning  He 
lands  upon  the  coast  of  Gergesa,  a  little  way  south  from  the  city. 
Here  He  is  met,  as  He  lands,  by  the  demoniacs.  Upon  the 
steep  slopes  of  the  adjacent  mountain  the  swine  are  feeding, 
and  to  Him  upon  the  shore  come  out  the  inhabitants  of  the  city, 
beseeching  Him  to  depart  from  their  coasts. 

Matthew  mentions  two  demoniacs;  Mark  and  Luke  but  one. 
[low  shall  this  discrepancy  he  explained  ?     Lightfoot  (on  Mark 


Part  IV.]  JESUS   RETURNS   TO   CAPERNAUM.  301 

V.  1),  who  supposes  that  Gergesa  was  the  name  of  a  district  em- 
bracing within  it  Gadara,  which  was  a  heathen  city,  makes  one 
of  the  two  to  have  been  a  Gadarene,  and  the  other  a  Gergesene. 
Matthew,  he  says,  mentions  both,  but  Mark  and  Luke  mention  only 
him  from  Gadara  as  a  heathen  demoniac,  "that  so  they  might  make 
the  story  more  famous."  Some,  as  Ebrard,  make  Matthew  to  have 
blended  this  case  with  that  of  the  possessed  healed  at  Caper- 
naum (Mark  i.  23).  Da  Costa  supposes  that  Matthew  knew  that 
there  was  in  fact  but  one,  but  that  he  might  have  seen  a  man 
attacked  by  the  demoniac,  and  so  gives  the  impression  upon  his 
mind  as  if  there  were  two  ! 

The  common  and  most  probable  explanation  is,  that .  there 
were  indeed  two,  but  that  one  was  much  more  prominent  than 
the  other,  either  as  the  fiercer  of  the  two,  or  as  of  a  higher  rank 
and  better  known,  and  therefore  alone  mentioned  by  Mark  and 
Luke.'  That  their  silence  respecting  one  of  the  demoniacs  does 
not  exclude  him,  Robinson  thus  illustrates:  ^  "In  the  year  1824 
Lafayette  visited  the  United  States,  and  was  everywhere  wel- 
comed with  honors  and  pageants.  Historians  will  describe  these 
as  a  noble  incident  in  his  life.  Other  writers  will  relate  the 
same  visit  as  made,  and  the  same  honors  as  enjoyed,  by  two  per- 
sons, viz.,  Lafayette  and  his  son.  Will  there  be  any  contradic- 
tion between  these  two  classes  of  writers  ?  Will  not  both  re- 
cord the  truth?"  Greswell  (i.  210)  thinks  that  one  of  those 
thus  healed  became  a  disciple,  and  that  the  other  did  not.  The 
former  being  thus  better  known,  and  his  case  invested  with  a 
personal  interest,  Mark  and  Luke  speak  of  him  only,  and  in 
much  detail  ;  while  Matthew,  who  desires  only  to  illustrate  the 
power  of  Christ  over  evil  spirits,  mentions  the  healing  of  both, 
but  says  nothing  of  their  subsequent  history.  He  prefers,  how- 
ever, the  conjecture  based  on  Luke  viii.  27,  that  this  one 
demoniac  was  an  inhabitant,  and  probably  a  native  of  Gergesa, 
but  not  the  other. 

Meyer,  on  the  other  hand,  rejects  all  attempts  to  explaia 
away  the  discrepancy;  and  Alford,  who  supposes  that  there  was 
but  one  demoniac,  tliinks  that  perhaps  his  words,    "  My  name  is 


•  So  early,  Augustine;  and  recently,  Alexander,  Krafit,  Stier,  Greswell,  EUicott 
McClel.,  Godet. 
2  Har.,  195. 


302  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

Legion,  for  we  are  many  "  (Mark  v.  9),  may  have  given  rise 
to  the  report  of  two  demoniacs  in  Matthew. 

The  request  of  the  Gergesenes  that  Jesus  would  depart  from 
their  coasts,  shows  how  material  interests  ruled  in  their  minds, 
and  how  unprepared  were  they  to  understand  the  real  signifi- 
cance of  His  work.  The  healing  of  the  demoniacs,  so  mighty  a 
miracle,  and  their  restoration  to  sound  mind  and  to  their 
families  and  friends,  were  of  less  value  than  the  loss  of  their 
swine. 

The  direction  to  the  healed  to  go  to  their  homes  (Mark  v.  19) 
and  proclaim  what  the  Lord  had  done  for  them,  so  contrary  to  His 
general  custom,  shows  that  it  was  His  desire  to  call  attention  to 
Himself  in  this  section  of  the  land,  and,  by  making,  this  miracle 
widely  known,  prepare  the  way  for  subsequent  labors.  Perhaps, 
also,  something  in  the  moral  condition  of  the  healed  made  this 
desirable  for  them. 

Autumn,  781.    A.  D.  28. 

Immediately  upon  His  return  to  Capernaum  He  is    Luke  viii.  40-56. 
surrounded  by  the  multitude,  whicla  has  been  waiting  for    Makk  v.  21^3. 
Him.    Being  invited  by  Matthew  to  a  feast  at  his  house,     Mark  ii.   1.5-22. 
He  there  holds  conversation  with  some  Pharisees,  and    Luke   v.  29-39. 
afterward  with  some  of  John's  disciples.      While  yet    Matt.  ix.  10-17. 
spealiing  with  them,  comes  Jairus,  a  ruler  of  the  syna-    Matt.  ix.  18-26. 
gogue,  praying  for  the  healing  of  his  daughter.     As  Jesus 
is  on  His  way  to  the  house  of  Jairus,  He  heals  a  wo- 
man with  an  issue  of  blood.     A  messenger  meeting  Him 
announces  the  death  of  the  girl,  but  He  proceeds,  and, 
entering  the  house,  restores  her  to  life. 

We  may  put  His  arrival  at  Capernaum  about  midday.  The 
crowds  that  for  several  days  had  been  following  Him,  were 
awaiting  eagerly  His  return,  and  now  gladly  received  Him. 
According  to  Matthew  (ix.  2),  after  this  retui-n  He  healed  the 
paralytic,  but  according  to  Mark  (ii.  3  ff.),  this  was  earlier,  and 
after  the  Lord's  return  from  His  first  circuit.  We  have  followed 
the  order  in  Mark. '  All  the  Synoptists  mention  the  call  of  Levi  as 
immediately  following  the  healing  of  the  paralytic.     The  question 


1  So  Rob.,  Alex.,  Licht.,  Ellicott,  Fried.,  McClel.,  Stroud,  Fuller;  following  Mat 
thew,  Bengel,  Farrar,  Keil. 


Part  IV.]  THE   FEAST   OF  LEVI,  303 

that  here  meets  us,  and  upon  the  answer  to  which  the  order  of 
subsequent  events  depends,  is.  Did  the  feast  given  by  Levi 
follow  immediately  upon  his  call,  or  was  it  after  the  Lord 
returned  from  Gergesa  ?  In  the  order  we  follow,  the  two  are 
separated.  The  question  cannot  be  answered  upon  any  ground  of 
intrinsic  fitness.  It  is  said  by  Plumptre  (in  Ellicott's  Com.)  that 
this  feast  was  a  "  farewell  feast  to  his  friends  and  neighbors  be- 
fore he  entered  upon  his  new  calling."  But  such  a  feast  would 
not  have  been  in  harmony  with  his  new  calling.  It  is  more 
probable  that  he  made  it  to  give  the  Lord  and  the  disciples  an 
opportunity  to  meet  the  guests  in  this  social  way,  with  reference 
to  a  better  knowledge  of  Him.  But  we  may  believe  that  this 
•'great  feast,"  for  which  special  preparation  was  needed,  was 
after  some  days  or  weeks,  rather  than  that  it  was  on  the  day  of 
the  call.'  That  the  feast  was  a  few  days  later  than  the  call 
appears  from  the  relations  in  which  it  is  placed  to  the  Lord's 
words  addressed  to  the  Pharisees  in  regard  to  eating  with  pub- 
licans and  sinners,  and  to  those  addressed  to  John's  disciples  in 
regard  to  fasting.  It  seems  from  Matthew's  words  (ix.  10  if.), 
that  this  feast  gave  occasion  to  their  questions  and  Ills  replies, 
for  we  are  told  that  "many  publicans  and  sinners  came  and  sat 
down  with  Him  and  His  disciples."  And  from  the  offense 
taken  by  John's  disciples  and  the  Pharisees  in  regard  to  fasting, 
we  may  infer  that  the  supper  was  upon  a  day  in  which  they 
fasted.  (That  this  was  a  fasting  day,  one  of  the  two  —  Monday 
and  Thursday  —  which  were  observed  by  the  more  scrupulous, 
(Luke  xviii.  12,)  is  probable,  if  we  accept  the  rendering  in  Mark 
ii.  18,  R.  v.:  "And  John's  disciples  and  the  Pharisees  were 
fasting,  and  they  came.")  We  cannot  well  separate  tliese  replies 
of  the  Lord  from  the  feast  of  Levi,  which  would  naturally  give 
occasion  to  the  questions  addressed  to  Him  and  to  His  disci- 
ples ;  and  in  this  most  are  agreed.  But  we  have  still  to  ask  how 
these  replies  stand  in  order  of  time  to  the  raising  of  the  daugh- 
ter of  Jairus.  Matthew  alone  of  the  Synoptists,  brings  the  two 
into  immediate  connection,  verse  18:  "While  He  spake  these 
things  unto  them  "  — to  John's  disciples  —  "behold  there  came 


1  Opinions  are  much  divided;  for  uniting  the  two,  Gardiner,  Caspari,  Friedlicb. 
Ellicott,  Stroud,  Puller;  for  separating  them  by  some  interval,  Robinson,  McClel,,  Far 
rar,  Riggenbach. 


304  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  IV. 

a  certain  ruler,  .  .  .  and  Jesus  arose  and  followed  him." 
Some  say  (so  Meyer)  that  Jairus  came  to  the  house  of  Levi  dur- 
ing the  feast,  and  that  the  Lord  arose  from  the  table,  and  went 
with  him.  It  is  said  by  McClellan:  "He  passed  from  Levi's 
house  of  feasting  to  Jairus'  house  of  mourning."  But  that  the 
Pharisees  were  any  of  them  present  at  the  feast,  whether 
as  spectators  or  spies,  as  held  by  Alexander,  cannot  be 
aflSrmed,  though  oriental  freedom  on  such  occasions  would 
have  permitted  it,  and  the  words  of  Matthew  point  to  it;  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  almost  certain  that  their  scruples  in  re- 
gard to  ceremonial  defilement  would  have  prevented  them. 
Probably  the  same  scruples  would  have  made  John's  disciples  to 
stand  aloof.  But,  if  not  present,  the  fact  of  the  Lord's  presence 
at  such  a  feast  must  very  soon  have  become  generally  known. 
It  is  said  by  Alford  that  "  the  remonstrance  addressed  to  the 
disciples,  '  Why  eateth  your  Master  with  publicans  and  sinners? ' 
cannot  have  taken  place  at  the  feast,  but  denotes  an  occasion 
when  the  Lord  and  the  disciples  were  present,  and  not  inter- 
mixed with  the  great  crowd  of  publicans." 

There  are  some  who  separate  the  Lord's  answer  to  the  Phar- 
isees from  that  to  John's  disciples,  and  put  some  interval 
between  them.  But,  they  cannot  weU  be  separated,  the 
internal  connection  showing  that  both  were  spoken  on  the  same 
occasion.  Gardiner,  who  follows  Mark's  order,  supposes  that 
the  discourse  concerning  fasting  may  have  been  repeated. 
Greswell  (ii.  .S98)  thinks  that  as  Matthew  puts  the  feast  just 
after  the  return  from  Gergesa,  and  Mark  and  Luke  put  it 
immediately  after  his  call,  we  must  accept  two  feasts,  one 
in  Levi's  own  house,  the  other  in  the  house  of  Simon  and 
Andrew,  where  the  Lord  had  His  abode.  There  seems  httle 
ground  for  this.  As  it  is  clear  from  Mark  (v.  22,  23)  and  Luke 
(viii.  40,  41)  that  the  raising  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus  was 
after  the  return  from  Gergesa.  we  put  the  feast  of  Levi  or 
Matthew  after  this  return.  Still  it  is  adinitted  that  the  com- 
ing of  Jairus  may  have  been  some  time  subsequent  to  the  feast, 
for  it  is  not  certain  that  the  reply  to  the  Pharisees  took  place  at 
the  feast;  or,  if  it  did  so,  that  the  reply  to  John's  disciples  was 
at  the  same  time  ;  but  the  probabilities  are,  that  all  took  place 
on  the  same  evening;  in  which  He  went  with  Jairus. 


Part   IV.J  THE    FEAST    OF   LEVI.  305 

As  there  is  much  difference  of  opinion  among  harmonists, 
where  this  feast  is  to  be  placed,  we  give  some  of  the  pi'oposed 
arrangements,  which  connect  as  immediately  successive  the  call  of 
Levi  and  his  feast. 

1.  Lichtenstein :  The  Lord  teaches  in  parables;  crosses  the 
sea,  and  heals  the  demoniacs  at  Gergesa;  returns  to  Capernaum; 
heals  the  paralytic  ;  calls  Matthew  ;  attends  Matthew's  feast; 
raises  up  the  daughter  of  Jairus;  choo-ses  Apostles;  and  delivers 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  This  is  open  to  the  insuperable  objection 
that  the  teaching  in  parables  precedes  the  choice  of  Apostles  and 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

2.  Stier:  The  Lord  chooses  Apostles;  teaches  in  parables; 
crosses  the  sea,  and  heals  the  demoniacs;  returns  to  Capernaum; 
heals  the  paralytic;  calls  Matthew;  attends  his  feast;  raises  up 
the  daughter  of  Jairus.  It  is  a  sufficient  objection  to  this  order, 
that  the  choice  of  Matthew  as  an  Apostle  precedes  his  call. 

3.  Ebrard:  The  Lord  teaches  in  parables  ;  crosses  the  sea, 
and  heals  the  demoniacs  ;  returns  to  Capernaum ;  answers  the 
questions  of  John's  disciples  respecting  fasting;  raises  the 
daughter  of  Jairus;  heals  the  blind,  and  the  dumb  possessed, 
and  the  paralytic;  calls  Levi,  and  attends  his  feast;  chooses  the 
Apostles;  and  delivery  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  This 
arrangement  is  open  to  the  same  objection  as  the  first,  that 
it  puts  the  teaching  in  parables  before  the  choice  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

In  the  above  arrangements,  the  call  of  Levi  and  the  feast  are 
both  put  after  the  teaching  in  parables  and  the  healing  of  the 
Gergasene  demoniacs,  but  others  put  them  much  earher.  Thus, 
Friedlieb  and  Fuller  put  them  before  the  unnamed  feast  (John  v. 
1 ) ;  and  so  generally  those  who  suppose  the  Lord  to  have  begun 
His  Galilsean  ministry  in  the  summer  or  autumn  of  the  first  year  of 
His  public  work.  But  if  this  ministry  began  after  this  unnamed 
feast,  and  the  call  of  Levi  was  before  the  choice  of  Apostles, 
we  must  bring  the  narratives  into  accord  by  separating  the  call 
from  the  feast. 

The  mention  of  John's  disciples  at  Capernaum  is  to  be  noted 
as  showing  that  there  were  some  there  who  did  not  follow  Jesus^ 
and  their  affinity  with  the  Pharisees  in  ceremonial  observances 


306  THE   LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

(Luke  V.  30,  does  not  mention  these  disciples,  but  the  Pliarisees 
only.) 

The  selection  of  Peter,  James,  and  John,  to  go  with  Him  to 
the  house  of  Jairus,  is  the  first  instance  recorded  of  special 
preference  of  these  three  above  the  other  nine  Apostles.  It  is 
hardly  to  be  questioned  that  this  selection  was  determined  by 
the  personal  peculiarities  of  these  three,  which  made  them  more 
ready  than  the  others  to  understand  the  real  meaning  of  Christ's 
words  and  works,  and  to  sympathize  with  Him  in  His  trials  and 
griefs.  But  why  they  should  have  been  selected  to  be  present 
at  this  particular  miracle,  is  not  apparent.  It  was  not,  accord- 
ing to  the  order  which  we  follow,  the  first  case  of  raising  the 
dead;  and  therefore  they  were  not  present,  as  Trench  supposes, 
on  this  ground.  But,  unlike  the  raising  of  the  widow's  son  at 
Nain,  which  was  in  public  before  all  the  funeral  procession,  the 
Lord  will  here  have  no  witnesses  but  His  three  Apostles  and  the 
father  and  mother  of  the  maiden.  Nor  will  He  allow  the  won- 
derful work  to  be  proclaimed  abroad:  "He  charged  them 
strictly  that  no  man  should  know  it."  The  grounds  of  these 
differences  in  the  Lord's  actings  are  probably  beyond  our  knowl- 
edge, and  cannot  be  explained.  That  He  now  enjoined  silence 
because  He  had  ceased  to  work  publiciy  in  Capernaum,  is  dis- 
proved by  His  later  miracles.  The  healing  of  the  woman  with 
an  issue  of  blood  presents  nothing  for  our  notice  here. 


Autumn,  781.     A.D.  28. 

Returning  homeward  from  the  house  of  Jairus,  He  is  Matt.  ix.  27-31. 
followed  by  two  blind  men,  saying,  "  Son  of  David,  have 
mercy  on  us."  They  enter  His  house  and  are  h  aled,  and 
He  charges  them  not  to  speak  of  what  He  had  done;  but 
they,  going  forth,  everywhere  proclaim  it.  As  they  depart, 
a  dumb  possessed  is  brought  to  Him,  whom  He  heals.  Matt.  ix.  33-34. 
to  the  astonishment  of  the  multitude.  This  gives  the 
Pharisees  new  occasion  to  say  that  He  casts  out  devils 
through  Satan. 

These  cases  of  healing  are  mentioned  only  by  Matthew,  and 
by  him  in  immediate  connection  with  the  raising  to  life  of  the 
daughter  of  Jairus.     We  assume  that  he  here  narrates  in  chron- 


Fart  IV.]  HEALING   OF  TWO   BLIND   MEN.  307 

ological  order.'  Some"  identify  Matt.  ix.  32-34  with  Luke  xi. 
14,  15;  and  as  the  healing  of  the  possessed  was  immediately 
after  that  of  the  blind,  place  all  these  miracles  at  a  much  later 
period,  and  after  the  sending  of  the  Seventy. 

By  these  blind  men  was  Jesus  for  the  first  time  addressed  as 
"the  Son  of  David."  This  shows  that  His  descent  from  that 
royal  house  was  known  and  recognized.  Already  the  people 
had  asked  of  Him  (Matt.  xii.  23),  "Is  not  this  the  Son  of 
David?"  (The  American  Committee  read:  "Can  this  be  the  Son 
of  David? ")  and.  the  use  of  the  title  by  the  bUnd  men  shows 
their  disposition  to  honor  Him  whose  help  they  sought.^ 

The  impression  which  the  mii-acle  of  healing  the  dumb  pos- 
sessed made  upon  the  multitude,  was  very  great,  and  explains 
why  the  Pharisees  should  repeat  the  charge  that  He  cast  out 
devils  through  the  prince  of  devils. 

Winter,  781-782.    A.D.  29. 

Leaving  Capernaum,  Jesus  goes,  accompanied  by  His  Matt.  xiii.  53-58. 

disciples,  into  lower  Galilee,  and  again  visits  Nazareth.  Mark  vi.  1-6. 

Rejected  here  the  second  time,  He  goes  about  through  Matt.  ix.   35-38. 

the  cities  and  villages  in  that  region.     During  this  circuit  Mark  vi.  7-13. 

He  commissions  and  sends  out  the  Twelve.     In  their  ab-  Matt.  x.  1-42. 

sence  He  continues  His  work.     About  this  time  John  is  Luke  ix.  1-9. 

beheaded  in  prison,  and  the  news  of  his  death  is  brought  Matt.  xiv.  1-12. 

to  Jesus  by  some  of  John's  disciples.     Herod  now  hears  Mark  vi.  14-30. 
of  Christ,  and  expresses  a  desire  to  see  Him.     Jesus  re- 
turns to  Capernaum,    and  the   Twelve  gather  to  Him 
there. 

In  the  order  of  events  we  follow  Mark  :  "And  He  went  out 
from  thence,  and  came  into  His  own  country;  and  His  disciples 
follow  Him."  The  place  of  departure  was  the  house  of  Jairus 
(Meyer,  Keil),  or  Capernaum  and  its  neighborhood  (Alexander). 


1  Robinson,  Greswell,  Lichtenstein,  Lange,  Bbrard,  Gardiner.  Alford,  however, 
observes  that  napdyovrL  eKcZSev  is  too  vague  to  be  taken  as  a  fixed  note  of  sequence; 
for  iKelBev,  '  thence,'  may  mean  the  house  of  Jairus,  or  the  town  itself,  or  even  that  part 
of  the  country,  as  verse  36  has  generalized  the  locality,  and  implied  some  pause  of  time." 
Edersheim  puts  them  at  or  near  Capernaum  on  His  return  from  Nain,  and  the  healing  of 
the  blind  and  dumb  possessed  (Matt.  xii.  22),  at  a  later  period.  The  point  has  already 
been  considered. 

2  Krafft,  Tischendorf. 

3  Compare  (Matt.  xx.  30)  the  healing  of  the  two  blind  men  at  Jericho,  when  the 
same  title  was  used;  as  also  by  the  woman  of  Canaan  (xv.  22). 


308  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

Matthew  (xiii.  53-58)  narrates  this  visit  to  Xazareth  immediately 
after  his  account  of  the  teaching  in  parables:  "And  it  came  to 
pass  when  Jesus  had  finished  these  parables  He  departed  thence. 
And  when  He  was  come  into  His  own  country,"  etc.  Here  it  is 
not  said  that  this  coming  to  Nazareth  was  immediately  subse- 
quent to  the  departure  after  the  parables  were  spoken.  That 
departure  was  not  to  Nazareth,  but  across  the  sea  to  Gergesa 
(Mark  iv,  35).  We  must  then  place  between  verses  53  and  54 
the  healing  of  the  demoniacs,  of  Jairus's  daughter,  of  the  wo- 
man with  issue  of  blood,  of  the  two  blind  men,  and  of  the  dumb 
possessed.  All  these  may  have  taken  place  on  the  day  of  the 
return  from  Gergesa;  and  thus,  between  the  teaching  in  parables 
and  the  departure  to  Nazareth,  only  an  interval  of  two  days 
may  have  elapsed;  but  in  all  probability  the  period  was  much 
longer. 

The  grounds  upon  which  this  visit  at  Nazareth  is  to  be  dis 
tinguished  from  the  earlier  one  mentioned  by  Luke  (iv.  16), 
have  been  already  stated.  The  circumstances  under  which  He 
now  returns  to  His  early  home  are  very  unlike  those  of  that  for- 
mer visit.  Then,  He  had  but  newly  begun  His  public  labors, 
and  was  comparatively  little  known  ;  and  great  surprise  was  felt 
that  one,  who  only  a  few  months  before  had  been  an  undistin- 
guished resident  among  them,  should  make  so  high  pretensions. 
How  could  He,  whom  they  had  known  from  childhood  up,  be  a 
prophet,  and  possess  such  powers  ?  Now,  His  fame  was  spread 
throughout  the  whole  land,  and  His  character  as  a  prophet  was 
established.  Crowds  followed  Him  from  all  parts  of  the  land. 
His  miracles  were  familiar  to  all.  He  had,  in  the  immediate 
neighborhood  of  Nazareth,  raised  a  dead  man  to  life.  But  His 
now  enlarged  and  confirmed  reputation  did  not  weaken  the  feeling 
of  surprise.  All  His  life  was  familiar  to  them,  and  they  could  not 
believe  that  He  was  in  aught  greater  than  themselves.  Jesus, 
therefore,  could  now  well,  and  even  with  greater  emphasis,  re- 
peat the  proverb,  "A  prophet  is  not  without  honor  but  in  his 
own  country";  adding,  with  reference  to  the  continued  unbelief 
of  His  brethren,  "and  among  his  own  kin,  and  in  his  own 
house."  (See  John  vii.  5.)  The  Nazarenes  did  not  now  take  any 
violent  measures  against  Him,  though  "offended  at  Him  ";  and 


Part  IV.]  SECOND   VISIT  AT  NAZARETH.  309 

after  teaching  in  the  synagogue  and  healing  a  few  sick  folk,  He 
made  a  circuit  through  the  adjacent  villages  (Mark  vi.  6).  It  is 
probable  that  Matthew  (ix.  35-38)  has  reference  to  this  circuit. 

That  the  sending  of  the  Twelve  upon  their  mission  was  dur- 
ing this  journey,  appears  from  the  order  in  which  it  stands  in 
all  the  Synoptists.  Matthew  (ix.  35,  ff.)  connects  it  with  the 
journey  following  the  healing  of  the  blind  men  and  the  dumb 
possessed;  and  Mark  (vi.  7),  with  that  following  the  departure 
from  Nazareth.  Luke  does  not  mention  this  visit  at  Nazareth, 
but  narrates  the  sending  of  the  Twelve  (ix.  1-6)  directly  after 
the  healing  of  Jairus's  daughter.  How  long  the  circuit  con- 
tinued, or  at  what  point  in  it  the  Twelve  were  sent  out,  we  have 
no  data  to  determine.  That  it  was  extensive  and  occupied  a 
considerable  period  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  Matthew's  lan- 
guage (ix.  35),  that  "  He  went  about  all  the  cities  and  villages." 
Nor  can  we  tell  from  what  place  they  were  sent.  Greswell  (ii. 
342)  supposes  it  to  have  been  Capernaum,  and  that  therefore 
the  sending  was  just  at  the  close  of  the  circuit.  "  It  is  certain 
that  after  their  mission  they  rejoined  our  Lord  at  Capernaum; 
and  it  is  not  probable  that  they  would  be  sent  from  one  quarter 
and  be  expected  to  rejoin  Him  at  another."  On  the  other  hand, 
Alford  observes  that  no  fixed  locality  can  be  assigned  to  their 
commission.  "It  was  not  delivered  at  Capernaum,  but  on  a 
journey."  The  view  of  Krafft  (99),  that  they  were  sent  from 
Jerusalem  when  Jesus  was  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  (John  v. 
1),  is  in  every  point  of  view  unsatisfactory,  and  is  refuted  by  the 
fact  that  the  theatre  of  His  activity  was  now  Galilee,  and  not 
Judaea. 

Where  did  the  Twelve  labor?  Luke  (ix.  6)  says,  "they  de- 
parted and  went  through  the  towns."  It  has  been  supposed 
that  this  expression  "towns,"  KCdfiag,  may  be  used  here  in  op- 
position to  cities,  implying  that  the  Twelve  visited  only  the 
smaller  places.  But  the  same  expression  is  used  of  the  Lord 
Himself  (Mark  vi.  6).  Probably  their  labors  were  confined  to 
Galilee.  They  were  forbidden  to  enter  Samaria;  and  it  is  not 
likely  that  they  would  enter  Judaea  from  which  the  Lord  was 
excluded.  As  they  journeyed  two  by  two,  this  would  enable 
them  to  visit  many  towns  in  a  few  days.     How  long  they  were 


310  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

absent  upon  their  mission  does  not  appear.  Wieseler,  followed 
by  Tiscliendorf,  would  limit  it  to  a  single  day;  Ellicott,  to  two 
days;  Edersbeim,  to  two  weeks;  Kraft't  extends  it  to  several 
months;  G-reswell  makes  them  to  have  been  sent  upon  their 
ministry  in  February,  and  to  have  returned  in  March,  an  inter- 
val of  near  two  months.  That  they  were  engaged  in  their  labors 
several  weeks  at  least,  is  plainly  implied  in  the  terms  of  their 
commission;  and  is  confirmed  by  the  brief  statements  of  their 
actual  labors.  It  is  said  in  Luke  ix.  6:  "  They  went  throughout 
the  villages."  (See  Godet,  in  loco:  "They  went  through  the 
country  in  general,  staying  in  every  little  town.")  Their  mission 
must  have  been  of  some  considerable  duration. 

The  same  question  meets  us  in  regard  to  the  commission 
given  to  the  Twelve  as  recorded  by  Matthew,  that  meet  us  in 
his  record  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Is  it  a  summary 
of  all  the  instructions  the  Lord  gave  them  respecting  their 
work,  instructions  given  on  different  occasions  ?  (So  Ellicott, 
194.)  Or  since  we  find  some  parts  of  it  in  Mark  and  Luke 
in  different  relations,  did  He  repeat  them  as  He  judged  fitting  ? 
Perhaps  both  may  be  true.  It  is  wholly  credible,  that,  in  pre- 
paring them  for  their  future  work,  He  should  often  have  spoken 
of  the  way  in  which  it  should  be  conducted,  and  of  the  oppo- 
sition and  perils  which  they  would  meet.  But  it  is  apparent 
upon  its  face  that  their  commission  had  a  far  larger  scope  than 
of  their  first  temporary  work  under  it.'  It  had  prospective 
reference  to  their  larger  work  after  the  Lord's  ascension,  and 
also  in  some  measure  to  all  the  missionary  work  "of  the  Church 
till  His  return.  Some  directions  in  it  are  plainly  temporary,  as 
those  not  to  visit  the  heathen  or  Samaritans,  and  to  make  no 
provision  of  money  or  clothing.  The  prediction  of  persecutions 
and  scourgings,  on  the  other  hand,  had  at  this  time  no  fulfill- 
ment. It  is  on  this  ground  that  some  make  a  division  of  its 
contents,  applying  verses  5  to  15  to  this  first  mission  (compare 
Mark  vi.  8-12,  Luke  ix.  1-6),  and  the  remainder  to  their  future 
labors.  It  is  said  by  Alexander,  that  "the  charge  relating  to 
the  first  mission  ends  with  verse  15,  and  with  verse  16  begins 
a  more  general  and  prospective  charge  relating  to  their  subse- 
quent Apostolic  labors." 

1  So  Jones,  Notes  on  Scripture,  100;  Stier,  ii.  2;  Eders.,  i.  640. 


Part  IV.]  THE   MISSION   OF   THE   TWELVE.  311 

With  the  correctness  of  this  or  other  divisions-  we  are  not 
here  concerned;  what  is  of  importance  to  us  is  the  light  which 
this  commission  casts  upon  the  relations  of  the  people  to  the 
Lord.  If  it  was  all  spoken  at  this  time,  it  was  a  plain  declara- 
tion to  the  Twelve  that  they,  going  out  in  His  name,  would 
meet  not  merely  a  temporary  outburst  of  hostility,  but  the  per- 
sistent and  bitter  enmity  of  those  to  whom  they  sliould  go  :  "  Ye 
shall  be  hated  of  all  men  for  my  name's  sake."  Yet  they  would 
find  some  who  would  receive  them,  some  "  sons  of  peace." 
That  they  did  not  understand  the  large  significance  of  the  Lord's 
words  is  cleai-,  for  their  conception  of  the  future  was  very  con- 
fused, and  the  thought  of  a  permanent  separation  from  Him  had 
not  yet  entered  tJieir  minds.  His  declarations  respecting  their 
persecutions  must  have  been  in  striking  contrast  to  the  opinions 
the  Apostles  were  yet  cherishing  respecting  the  reign  of  the 
Messiah,  and  His  general  reception  by  the  people.  By  speaking 
of  their  sufferings  and  persecutions.  He  announced,  by  implica- 
tion, His  own  sufferings  and  rejection. 

There  are  two  aspects  in  which  this  mission  of  the  Twelve 
may  be  regarded :  First,  as  that  of  heralds  proclaiming  wherever 
they  went  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand.  It  has  been 
questioned  whether  the  Lord's  pui-pose  in  sending  them  was  to 
draw  attention  to  Himself,  proclaiming  by  them  that  the  Mes- 
siah had  come  and  was  among  them,  or  to  announce  the  approach 
of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  to  call  to  repentance,  and  to  confirm 
their  message  by  their  miracles.  But  we  can  scarce  doubt  that 
their  commission  was  rather  that  of  heralds  than  of  preachers. 
They  could  not  themselves  at  this  time  have  understood  suffi- 
ciently the  nature  of  the  kingdom  they  proclaimed  to  be  able 
to  teach  others.  Plumptre  in  loco,  holds  that  they  were  to  go 
as  heralds:  "The  two  envoys  of  the  kingdom  were  to  enter  into 
a  town  or  village,  and  there  standing  in  the  gate,  to  announce 
that  the  kingdom  had  come  near,  and  when  this  had  drawn 
crowds  to  hsten,  to  call  men  to  repentance,  without  which  they 
could  not  enter  it."  But,  as  said  by  Pressens^,  it  is  most  proba- 
ble that  their  mission  did  not  "go  beyond  a  general  announce- 
ment that  the  Messiah  had  appeared."  It  was  not  that  they 
should  be  teachers  of  the  people,  but  that  they  should  bring 
them  to  their  Lord  that  He  might  teach  them. 


312  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  IV. 

Secondly,  as  that  of  men  endowed  with  miraculous  powers, 
whose  works  were  not  less  important  than  their  message  (Matt.  x. 
7,  8).  Their  endowment  with  such  powers  was  a  thing  unknown 
in  Jewish  history,  and  this  in  two  respects  —  (a)  that  no  limitation 
was  put  on  their  exercise,  (b)  that  they  were  conferred  by  a  Man 
upon  them  that,  as  one  body,  they  might  bear  witness  to  Him 
As  in  the  case  of  the  Lord,  the  healings  wrought  by  the  Twelve 
were  not  of  certain  individuals  alone  who  had  faith,  but  were 
general.  As  it  is  said  of  Him,  that  He  went  "  round  about  the 
villages  teaching,"  "  entering  into  all  the  synagogues,  and  healing 
every  sickness  and  every  disease  among  the  people,"  so  their 
commission  was  "to  cast  out  unclean  spirits,  and  to  heal  all  man- 
ner of  sickness,  and  all  manner  of  disease."  The  end  of  both 
was  the  same  —  to  show  that  tlie  kingdom  of  God  is  present  in 
the  person  of  the  King.  It  was  bringing  that  kingdom  through 
these  works  of  deliverance  into  sharpest  contrast  with  the  bond- 
age of  soul  and  body  under  the  rule  of  evil  spirits.  Thus 
their  works,  even  more  impressively  than  their  words,  testified 
that  the  day  of  redemption  and  the  Kedeemer  were  at  hand. 

The  fact  that  they  possessed  such  powers  as  the  heralds 
of  Jesus  must  have  led  many  to  ask,  Is  not  He  who  sent  them 
forth,  and  who  not  only  Himself  heals  all,  but  is  able  to  give 
like  power  to  others,  the  Messiah?  No  prophet  in  the  past  had 
ever  been  able  to  do  this,  not  even  Moses.  Is  not  He  who  does 
this  a  King,  and  even  more  than  a  King  ? 

These  miraculous  endowments  were  doubtless  confined  to 
this  mission.  Up  to  this  time  there  is  no  mention  that  the 
Twelve  had  wrought  any  miracles,  nor  is  it  recorded  that  they 
did  so  after  they  rejoined  the  Lord.  (See  however  Matt.  xxi. 
19,  20,  as  showing  that  the  power  to  work  miracles  was  not  ab- 
solutely withdrawn,  but  was  dependent  on  their  faith.) 

That  Jesus  continued  His  own  personal  labors  during  the 
absence  of  the  Twelve,  appears  from  Matthew  (xi.  1),  that 
"  when  He  had  made  an  end  of  commanding  His  Twelve  disci- 
ples. He  departed  thence  to  teach  and  preach  in  their  cities." 
In  these  journeyings  He  was  probably  accompanied  by  other 
disciples,  doubtless  by  some  of  those  who  were  afterward  chosen 
among  the  seventy  (Luke  x.  1),  and  perhaps  also  by  the  women 


Part  IV.]  DEATH   OF  THE  BAPTIST.  313 

who  had  before  been  with  Him.  If,  as  is  probable,  He  had 
given  direction  to  the  Twelve  to  rejoin  Him  at  Capernaum  at 
some  fixed  time,  He  would  now  so  direct  His  own  course  as  to 
meet  them  there. 

It  was  during  the  mission  of  the  Twelve  that  the  death  of 
John  the  Baptist  occurred.  The  news  of  it  seems  to  have  been 
communicated  to  Jesus  by  John's  disciples  (Matt.  xiv.  ]  2),  but 
this  must  have  been  some  days  at  least  after  the  event.  The 
date  of  his  death  has  been  already  discussed  (Chronological 
Essay,  46  ff.),  and  the  conclusion  reached  that  it  was  in  the  latter 
part  of  March  or  the  beginning  of  April,  782. 

From  Mark  vi.  13,  14,  and  Luke  ix.  6,  7,  it  appears  that  it 
was  not  till  after  the  death  of  John  that  Herod  heard  of  Jesus. 
But  how  could  he  have  been  so  long  active  in  one  of  Herod's 
provinces,  followed  by  great  multitudes,  performing  daily  the 
most  wonderful  works,  and  His  residence  only  a  very  few  miles 
from  Sepphoris,  where  the  king  kept  his  court,  and  yet  His  fame 
never  reach  the  royal  ears?  Tiberias  was  built  about  779,  but 
whether  Herod's  palace  was  completed  and  he  resided  there  at 
this  time,  we  do  not  know.  The  most  ready  explanation  would 
be,  that  during  His  ministry  Herod  had  been  absent  from 
Galilee  on  a  visit  at  Eome,  whither  he  went  about  this  time;  or 
had  been  engaged  in  hostilities  with  Aretas,  and  thus  remained 
in  good  measure  ignorant  of  what  was  taking  place.'  There  is 
much  probability  in  this  supposition  of  Hexod-'a-absfince,  but  de- 
cisive proof  is  wanting.  If,  however,  he  was  in  Galilee  during 
this  period,  his  ignorance  of  Jesus  finds  a  sufficient  explanation 
in  his  own  personal  character.  We  know  from  Josephus  that 
he  was  a  lover  of  ease  and  pleasure,  and  a  man  who  occupied 
himself  more  in  erecting  fine  buildings  than  in  public  affairs. 
Like  all  the  Herod ian  family,  he  treated  the  Jewish  religion 
with  respect  as  a  matter  of  policy,  but  did  not  interfere  with 
ecclesiastical  matters,  except  he  saw  movements  dangerous  to  the 
public  peace.  The  disputes  of  contending  sects,  or  the  theolog- 
ical discussions  of  the  Rabbins,  had  no  attractions  for  him  ;  and, 
provided  the  Jews  were   orderly  and  peaceful,  he  cared  not  to 


1  Greswell,  iii.  428;  Edersheim,  i.  G54,  says  that  he  was  during  the  Galilaean  minis- 
try in  his  dominions  east  of  the  Jordan,  at  Julias  or  Machaerus, 

14 


814  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Fart  IV. 

interfere  in  their  religious  quarrels.  John's  ministry  continued 
a  considerable  period  without  any  interruption  on  his  part;  and 
when  he  at  last  imprisoned  him,  it  was  on  personal,  not  on 
political  or  religious,  grounds.  Hence,  we  can  understand  how 
Jesus  might  prosecute  His  work  in  Galilee  in  the  vicinity  of 
Herod,  without  the  latter  learning  anything  definite  respecting 
it,  or  having  his  attention  specially  directed  to  His  character  or 
designs.  As  a  new  religious  teacher,  the  founder  of  a  new  sect, 
an  opponent  of  the  Pharisees  and  scribes,  the  matter  was  unim- 
portant, and  beneath  the  royal  notice.  Unless  the  public  tran- 
quility was  actually  disturbed  or  seriously  threatened,  Herod, 
like  Gallio,  cared  for  none  of  these  things. 

During  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist,  Herod  seems  to 
have  had  several  interviews  with  him,  and  learned  to  appreciate 
his  bold  and  fearless  honesty  (Mark  vi.  20).  He  did  many 
things  that  John  recommended,  and  heard  him  gladly.  Hence, 
when,  in  his  drunken  revelry,  he  had  given  up  the  Baptist  to  the 
malice  of  Herodias,  he  was  troubled  in  conscience;  and  his  ears 
were  open  to  any  tidings  that  had  connection  with  the  departed 
prophet.  It  was  a  short  time  before  this  that  Jesus  had  sent 
out  the  Twelve,  a  step  which  would  naturally  turn  public  attention 
to  Him,  and  which  might  easily  be  misinterpreted.  It  would 
arouse  His  watchful  enemies  to  action,  for  it  apparently  indi- 
cated a  purpose  to  disseminate  His  doctrine  more  widely,  and  to 
make  disciples  in  larger  numbers.  It  might  thus  easily,  through 
them,  reach  the  ears  of  Herod,  who  would  be  led  to  inquire  more 
particularly  into  the  character  and  works  of  the  new  Kabbi. 
But  his  informants  gave  him  different  answers  (Mark  vi.  14,  15, 
Luke  ix.  7,  8).  Some  said  that  He  was  Elias;  others,  that  He 
was  a  prophet,  or  as  one  of  the  prophets;  and  others  still,  igno- 
rant of  His  earlier  work,  said  that  He  was  John  the  Baptist 
risen  from  the  dead.  This  last  account,  to  the  uneasy  and  super- 
stitious mind  of  Herod,  was  most  credible,  and  explained  how 
He  wrought  such  mighty  works  as  wei-e  ascribed  to  Him.  Re- 
turned to  life,  he  could  do  what  could  be  done  by  no  one  in  mor- 
tal flesh  (Matt.  xiv.  2;  Mark  vi.  14).  All  this  awakened  in 
Herod  a  lively  desire  to  see  Jesus,  but  no  intimation  is  given  us 
that  he  designed  to  arrest  Him  or  to  hinder  Him  in  His  work. 


Part,  IV.]  herod's  ignorance  op  JESUS.  315 

Thus  far  the  Messianic  claims  of  the  Lord  had  been  so  presented, 
that  there  was  nothing  in  His  teachings  or  actions  to  awaken 
Herod's  jealousy  of  Him  as  a  claimant  of  the  throne.  At  no 
period  does  the  king  seem  to  have  looked  upon  Him  with  any 
dislike  or  fear  as  a  political  leader.  The  threatenings  of  the 
Pharisees  at  a  later  period,  that  Herod  would  kill  Him  (Luke 
xiii.  31),  seem  to  have  been  a  device  of  their  own  to  frighten 
Him  from  His  labors. 

According  to  Josephus, '  John  was  put  to  death  at  Machaerus, 
a  fortress  at  the  southern  extremity  of  Persea  on  the  borders  of 
Arabia.^  It  has  been  questioned  whether  Herod  would  have 
made  a  birthday  feast  at  the  southern  extremity  of  his  domin- 
ions, where  it  would  be  difficult  for  the  courtiers  and  noblemen 
of  his  court  to  attend.  Still,  if  we  remember  that  the  Jews 
generally  were  in  the  habit  of  going  up  from  the  most  remote 
parts  of  the  land  to  Jerusalem  once  or  more  every  year  to  the 
feasts,  the  journey  of  a  few  courtiers  to  Machaerus  will  not 
seem  strange.  Besides,  if  Herod  was  detained  there  through 
a  war,  or  other  cause,  the  feast  must  follow  his  pleasure;  and 
if  Machaerus  was  not  convenient  to  his  guests  from  Galilee,  it 
was  more  convenient  to  those  from  Peraea. 

Some,  however,  have  supposed  that  the  feast  did  not  take 
place  at  Machaerus,  although  John  was  beheaded  there,  but  at 
Tiberias,  or  at  Julias.  (For  Machaerus:  Meyer,  Lewin,  Gams, 
Alford,  and  most;  for  Tiberias:  Grotius,  Lightfoot;  for  Livias 
or  Julias:  Wieseler,  Lange.)  But  although  it  is  possible  that  the 
head  of  the  Baptist  should  have  been  taken  from  Machaerus  to 
Tiberias  before  the  feast  ended,  yet  the  obvious  interpretation  of 
the  narrative  is,  that  he  was  beheaded  the  same  night  in  which 
the  daughter  of  Herodias  danced  before  the  king,  or  at  least, 
that  no  long  interval  elapsed.  If  the  feast  was  not  at  Machae- 
rus, where  most  place  it,  it  was  most  probably  at  Julias,  ^  which 
was  at  no  great  distance,  and  where  Herod  had  a  summer  palace. 


■  Antiq.,  xviii.  5.  2. 

2  The  question  respecting  the  possession  of  this  fortress  at  this  time,  whether  it  was 
held  by  Herod  or  by  Aretas,  was  considered  in  the  inquiry  as  to  the  time  of  the  Bap- 
tist's imprisonment.    That  he  was  beheaded  there  is  generally  accepted. 

3  The  modern  Beit-Haran.    See  Tristram,  B.  P.,  348. 


PART  y. 

FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  THE  BAPTIST  TO  THE  FINAL  DEPARTURE 
FROM  GALILEE,  OR  FROM  APRIL  TO  NOVEMBER,  782.  A.  D.  29. 


The  LonVs  Ministry  in    Galilee  from  the    Death  of  the 
Baptist  till  its   Close. 

The  connection  between  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist  and 
the  commencement  of  the  Lord's  ministry  in  Galilee  has  been 
already  considered.  The  same  moral  causes  that  determined 
this  connection,  make  the  death  of  the  Baptist  important  in  its 
influence  upon  the  subsequent  character  of  that  ministry.  It 
appears  from  the  notices  of  the  Evangehsts  that  when  this  event 
occurred,  the  popularity  of  Jesus,  if  we  may  use  this  word,  was 
at  its  height  in  Galilee.  Great  multitudes  followed  Him  wherever 
He  went,  and  so  thronged  Him  that  He  had  no  leisure  even  to  eat. 
From  every  part  of  the  land  they  came  to  listen  to  His  teachings 
and  to  be  healed.  Nor  may  we  ascribe  this  concourse  merely  to 
curiosity  and  selfishness.  These  doubtless  ruled  in  many;  but 
that  there  was  also  at  this  period  a  large  measure  of  faith  in 
Him  as  one  sent  from  God,  appears  from  the  fact  that 
"  whithersoever  He  entered,  into  villages,  or  cities,  or  country, 
they  laid  the  sick  in  the  streets,  and  besought  Him  that  they 
might  touch  if  it  were  but  the  border  of  His  garment;  and  as 
many  as  touched  it  were  made  whole."  As  His  healing  power 
seems  now  to  have  been  manifested  in  its  greatest  activity,  so 
now  He  performed  one  of  the  most  stupendous  of  His  miracles, 
the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand.  At  no  period  of  His  ministry 
did  He  stand  in  such  high  reputation  with  the  people  at  large  as 
a  Teacher  and  Prophet;  and  to  the  human  eye.  His  labors 
seemed  about  to  be  crowned  with  great  results. 

Itwas  at  this  stage  of  His  ministry  that  He  heard  of  the 
Baptist's  death.  To  His  clear-seeing  eye  the  fate  of  His  fore- 
runner was  prophetic  of  His  own.     As  the  Jews  "  liad  done  unto 

(317) 


318  •  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  V. 

the  Baptist  whatsoever  they  Hsted,  as  it  was  written  of  Him, "  so  He 
knew  that  He  also  "  must  suffer  many  tliiugs  and  be  set  at  naught  " 
(Mark  ix.  12,  13).  However  well  disposed  toward  Him  indi- 
viduals among  the  people  might  be,  there  was  no  longer  hope 
that  the  nation,  as  such,  would  receive  Him.  The  more  clearly 
He  revealed  His  Messianic  character  in  its  higher  features,  the 
more  all  the  worldly  minded,  the  unspiritual,  turned  away  from 
Him.  His  popularity  rested  upon  no  solid  or  permanent  basis, 
as  there  was  no  recognition  of  His  true  mission,  and  He  was 
deemed  merely  the  equal  of  John  or  Elijah.  He  was  in  a  posi- 
tion in  which  He  must  either  fulfill  their  Messianic  expectations, 
and  begin  the  struggle  for  political  freedom,  or  meet  the  re- 
action which  His  refusal  would  inevitably  bring.  From  this 
time,  therefore,  He  begins  to  act  as  in  view  of  His  approaching 
death.  More  and  more  He  withdraws  Himself  from  the  crowds 
that  follow  Him,  and  devotes  Himself  to  the  instruction  of  His 
disciples.  It  is  not  now  so  much  His  purpose  to  gather  new  ad- 
herents, as  to  teach  those  already  believing  on  Him  the  great 
mysteries  of  His  Person  and  work.  As  yet  the  knowledge 
even  of  the  Twelve  was  very  imperfect;  and  He  could  not  be 
personally  separated  from  them  till  He  had  taught  them  of  His 
divine  origin;  and  as  subsequent  to  this,  of  His  death,  resurrec- 
tion, ascension,  and  of  His  coming  again  in  glory. 

As  the  Lord  seemed  thus  to  shun  public  observation,  it  was 
natural  that  the  popular  favor  which  had  followed  Him  should 
suffer  at  least  a  temporary  diminution;  and  that  this  should 
have  been  the  signal  for  increased  activity  on  the  part  of  His 
enemies.  As  He  made  no  distinct  assertion  of  His  Messianic 
claims  before  the  people  at  large,  and  so  far  from  assuming 
royal  dignity,  seemed  rather  to  take  the  position  of  a  mere 
Kabbi,  the  fickle  multitude  was  the  more  easily  affected  by  the 
accusations  and  invectives  of  His  foes.  His  teachings  also  seem 
to  have  gradually  assumed  a  more  mysterious  and  even  repellent 
character.  He  speaks  of  Himself  as  "  the  bread  of  life  ";  of  the 
necessity  of  "eating  His  flesh  and  drinking  His  blood";  lan- 
guage so  incomprehensible  and  so  offensive,  that  many,  even  of 
His  disciples,  forsook  Him.  To  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  He 
addresses  reproaches  of  unwonted  severity.     Up  to  this  time  He 


Part  v.]  LATER   MINISTRY   IN   GALILEE.  319 

had  been  engaged  in  gathering  disciples,  and  for  their  sake  He 
would  not  willingly  array  against  Himself  those  whom  all  the 
people  had  been  taught  to  honor  as  their  ecclesiastical  rulers  and 
teachers.  Such  open  hostility  on  their  part,  and  a  corresponding 
severity  of  rebuke  on  His,  would  have  been  a  stumbling-block  to 
the  tender  conscience  and  half-enlightened  mind.  But  the  time 
is  come  that  the  line  of  separation  must  be  clearly  drawn,  and 
the  truth  respecting  Himself  and  His  enemies  be  openly  spoken ; 
and  His  disciples  learn  that  to  follow  Him  involves  the  fierce 
and  persistent  enmity  of  their  spiritual  rulers  and  guides  —  an 
enmity  which  should  follow  them  even  after  His  own  death. 

That  which  specially  characterizes  the  second  part  of  the 
Lord's  ministry  in  Galilee,  or  that  from  the  death  of  the  Baptist 
onward,  we  thus  find  to  be  a  gradual  withdrawal  of  Himself 
from  the  multitude  and  from  public  labors,  and  the  devotion  of 
Himself  to  the  instruction  of  His  disciples.  When  by  these  in- 
structions He  has  prepared  them  to  understand  His  Divine  Son- 
ship,  and  what  should  befall  Him  at  Jerusalem,  His  Galilaean 
ministry  comes  to  its  end. 

Outhne  of  the  second  part  of  the  Galilgean  ministry  : 

Fifth  Sojourn    in    Capernaum. 

Hearing  of  the  death  of  the  Baptist,  the  Lord  returns  to 
Capernaum.  No  event  is  narrated  as  having  occurred  during 
this  sojourn.  Probably  it  was  very  brief  —  a  mere  passage 
through  the  city. 

FIFTH    CIRCUIT. 

He  crosses  the  sea  with  the  Twelve  to  seek  retirement,  but 
the  multitude  immediately  follow  Him.  He  feeds  the  5,000, 
and  sending  away  the  apostles  by  ship  He  rejoins  them  the  next 
morning,  walking  on  the  sea.  Landing  on  the  plain  of  Gennes- 
aret,  He  heals  the  sick,  and  they  return  to  Capernaum. 

Sixth  Sojourn  in   Capernaum. 

He  discourses  in  the  synagogue  on  the  bread  of  life.  His 
discourse  causes  many  of  His  disciples  to  forsake  Him.  He 
addresses  the  Pharisees,  and  heals  the  sick, 


320  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  V. 

SIXTH    CIECUIT. 

He  goes  to  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  to  find  retirement. 
Here  He  heals  the  daughter  of  the  Syro-Phoenician  woman. 
Crossing  the  northern  part  of  the  Jordan,  He  goes  to  Decapolis 
He  heals  a  deaf  man,  and  feeds  the  4,000,  and  returns  by  Dal- 
manutha  to  Capernaum. 

Seventh  Sojourn  in    Cajjernaum. 
He  is  tempted  by  the  Pharisees,  who  seek  a  sign. 

SEVENTH     CIRCUIT. 

He  goes  to  Bethsaida,  and  there  heals  a  blind  man.  He 
returns  to  Capernaum,  and  there  meets  His  brethren,  who  wish 
Him  to  go  up  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  and  show  Himself 
openly  at  Jerusalem. 

Eighth    Sojourn   at    Capernaum. 
He  remains  at  Capernaum  till  the  feast  had  begun,  and  then 
goes  up  privately  to  Jerusalem,  and  teaches.     A  woman  taken 
in  adultery  is  then  brought  before  Him;  He  heals  a  blind  man; 
and  after  a  time  returns  to  Capernaum. 

EIGHTH    CIRCUIT. 

He  leaves  Capernaum  and  goes  to  Caesarea  Philippi.  The  con- 
fession of  Peter,  and  the  Transfiguration.  He  heals  the  lunatic 
child,  and  returns  to  Capernaum. 

Ninth  Sojourn  at    Capernaum.    ■ 
He  pays  the  tribute  money. 

Final  Departure  from    Capernaum  and   Galilee. 
Apkil,  782.     A.  D.    29. 

After  the  return  of  the  Twelve  to  Him  at  Capernaum,  Mark  vi.  31-44. 

Jesus  prepares  to  go  with  them  across  the  sea  to  find  se-  Luke  ix.  10-17. 

elusion  and  rest.     They  desire  to  go  privately,  but  the  John  vi.  1^. 

multitudes  seeing  them  departing  by  ship,  follow  them  Matt.  xiv.  13-14. 
on  foot  along  the  shore,  and  come  to  the  place  where  He 
had  gone.     Hehealstheirsick,  and  the  same  evening  feeds 

.5,000  men,  beside  women  and  children.       Immediately  Matt.  xiv.  1.5-21. 


Part  v.]  SECOND   CROSSING   THE   SEA.  321 

after,   lie  compels  the  disciples  to  return  in  the  ship  to    John  vi.  5-14. 
Capernaum,  and  remains  to  dismiss  the  people.    He  spends    Mark  vi.  45-53. 
the  night  alone,  and  early  in  the  morning  walks  upon  the    John  vi.  15-21. 
sea  to  rejoin  the  disciples  who  have  been  driven  from  their 
course  by  the   wind,  and   are  unable  to  make  the  land. 
Having  rescued  Peter,  who  attempts  to  walk  upon  the    Matt.  xiv.  32-34. 
water  to  meet  Him,  they  both  enter  the  boat,  and  im- 
mediately come  to  the  shore  in  the  laud  of  Gennesaret. 

It  is  not  said  where  Jesus  was  when  the  disciples  of  John 
came  to  Him  to  announce  their  master's  death  (Matt.  xiv.  12), 
but  it  was  natural  that  they  should  seek  Him  at  Capernaum. 
About  the  same  time  the  Twelve,  who  had  been  absent  on  their 
mission,  rejoined  Him.  Perhaps  their  return  at  this  juncture 
may  have  been  determined  by  the  tidings  of  the  death  of  the 
Baptist,  which  must  very  soon  have  become  widely  and  gener- 
ally known.  As  usual  whenever  Jesus  after  one  of  His  circuits 
returned  to  Capernaum,  the  people  of  the  surrounding  cities  and 
villages  flocked  to  see  Him,  bringing  with  them  their  sick. 
"Many  were  coming  and  going,  and  they  had  no  leisure  so 
much  as  to  eat  "  (Mark  vi.  31).  Jesus  therefore  determined  to 
cross  the  sea,  and  find  repose  in  the  uninhabited  hills  upon  the 
eastern  shore.  Some  attribute  this  departure  to  fear  of  Herod's 
hostility,  and  this  has  some  countenance  in  the  language  of 
Matt.  xiv.  13.  Caspari  says:  "The  Lord,  to  avoid  the  tyrant, 
repaired  to  the  eastern  part  of  the  lake."  But  a  more  careful 
examination  shows  us  that  this  could  not  have  been  His  mo- 
tive. Luke  (ix.  9)  mentions  that  Herod  "desired  to  see  Him," 
but  this  seems  to  have  been  rather  from  curiosity  than  from  any 
purpose  to  arrest  Him.  Mark  gives  the  Lord's  own  words  to 
the  Apostles,  "Come  ye  yourselves  apart  into  a  desert  place,  and 
rest  awhile  ";  adding  the  explanatory  remark  that  "  they  had  no 
leisure  so  much  as  to  eat."  He  desired  to  separate  the  Apostles 
from  the  multitude;  and  to  give  them  after  their  labors  a  little 
period  of  repose,  such  as  was  not  possible  for  them  to  obtain  at 
Capernaum.  Perhaps,  also,  He  Himself  desired  a  few  hours  for 
solitary  communion  with  God  for  the  refreshment  of  His  own 
spirit,  agitated  by  the  death  of  John,  whom  He  mourned  as  a 
faithful  friend;  and  in  whose  untimely  and  violent  end  He  saw 
the  sign  and  foreshadowing  of  His  own  approaching  death. 

That  the  departure  across  the  sea  was  not  through  fear  of 
14* 


323  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  V. 

personal  violence  of  Herod,  appears  also  from  the  fact  that  Jesus 
the  next  day  returned,  landing  publicly  upon  the  shore  of 
Gennesaret;  and  thence  attended  by  crowds  went  to  Caper- 
naum, where  He  taught  openly  in  the  synagogue  (Mark  vi.  53- 
55;  John  vi.  22-59).  And  after  this,  as  before.  He  continued 
to  make  Capernaum  His  abode,  and  was  not  molested  by  Herod. 
Norton  suggests  that  the  death  of  John  had  produced  a  sudden 
excitement  among  the  people;  and  that  public  attention  began 
to  be  turned  to  Jesus  as  one  who  might  avenge  his  murder,  and 
become  Himself  their  king;  and  that  it  was  to  escape  the  people 
rather  than  Herod,  that  He  crossed  the  sea.  But  the  desire  to 
make  Him  king  (John  vi.  15),  seems  to  have  been  rather  the 
effect  of  the  miracle  He  wrought  than  of  any  popular  indig- 
nation because  of  John's  death. 

The  place  to  which  the  Lord  directed  His  course  across  the  sea, 
was  "  a  desert  place  belonging  to  the  city  called  Bethsaida"  (Luke 
ix.  10).  The  position  of  this  city  has  been  already  discussed. 
According  to  the  conclusion  then  reached,  it  was  situated  just  at  the 
entrance  of  the  Jordan  into  the  sea,  and  upon  both  banks  of  the 
stream.  Upon  the  east  side  lies  the  rich  level  plain  of  Butaiha 
(Batihah),  a  plain  a  little  larger  than  Gennesaret,  forming  a  triangle, 
of  which  the  eastern  mountains  make  one  side,  and  the  river  bank 
and  the  lake  shore  the  two  other.  This  plain,  with  its  Ijordering  hills, 
probably  belonged  to  Bethsaida.  It  was  at  the  southeastern  angle 
of  this  plain,  where  the  hills  come  down  close  to  the  shore,  that 
Thomson  (ii.  29)  places  the  site  of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand. 
"  From  the  four  narratives  of  this  stupendous  miracle,  we  gather,  1st, 
that  the  place  belonged  to  Bethsaida;  2d,  that  it  was  a  desert  j^lace; 
3d,  that  it  was  near  the  shore  of  the  lake,  for  they  came  to  it  by 
boats ;  4th,  that  there  was  a  mountain  close  at  hand ;  5th,  that  it  was 
a  smooth,  grassy  spot,  capable  of  seating  many  thousand  people. 
Now  all  these  requisites  are  foiind  in  this  exact  locality,  and  nowhere 
else,  so  far  as  I  can  discover.  This  Butaiha  belonged  to  Bethsaida. 
At  this  extreme  southeast  corner  of  it,  the  mountain  shuts  down 
upon  the  lake,  bleak  and  barren.  It  was,  doubtless,  desert  then  as 
now,  for  it  is  not  capable  of  cultivation.  In  this  little  cove  the  ships 
(boats)  were  anchored.  On  this  beautiful  sward,  at  the  base  of  the 
rocky  hill,  the  people  were  seated." 

We  see  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Thomson  has  rightly  fixed  upon 
the  site  of  the  miracle.     A  generally   received   tradition    placed   it 


Part  v.]  THE  MULTITUDES   FOLLOW   HIM.  323 

upon  the  west  side  of  the  lake,  and  near  to  Tiberias;  but  there  was 
no  agreement  as  to  the  exact  spot.  The  earliest  tradition,  going 
back  to  the  fourth  century,  placed  it,  according  to  Robinson  (ii.  373), 
"on  the  broad  ridge  about  an  hour  southeast  of  the  Mount  of  the 
Beatitudes,"  where  are  four  or  five  blocks  of  black  stone  called  by  the 
Arabs  "  stones  of  the  Christians,"  and  by  the  Latins,  meiisa  Christi, 
"table  of  Christ."  A  later  tradition  —  not  older,  according  to 
Robinson,  than  the  twelfth  century  —  put  it  on  the  mountain  where 
the  Lord's  Sermon  was  delivered.  As  early  as  700  A.  D.  Arculf  was 
shown  here  "  a  grassy  and  level  plain  which  had  never  been  ploughed 
since  that  event."  Col.  Wilson  (Bib.  Ed.,  iii.  186)  thinks  it  may 
have  been  near  Ain  Baridah,  which  is  between  Tiberias  and  Magdala.' 

There  is  some  question  as  to  the  right  reading.  In  the  A.  V., 
Luke  ix.  10,  it  reads:  "  And  He  took  them,  and  went  aside  privately 
into  a  desert  place  belonging  to  the  city  called  Bethsaida;"  in  R. 
v.,  "And  He  took  them,  and  withdrew  apart  to  a  city  called 
Bethsaida."  (So  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.,  Meyer;  others,  as  Godet:  "  into 
a  desert  place  called  Bethsaida";  others,  accepting  the  Sinaitic  read- 
ing: "into  a  desert  place."  Matthew  says  (xiv.  13,  R.  V.),  "He 
withdrew  in  a  boat  to  a  desert  place  apart."  Luke  does  not  mention 
any  crossing  of  the  lake,  probably  because  the  mention  of  Bethsaida 
sufficiently  indicated  that  it  was  upon  the  east  side.  In  John  (vi, 
23)  there  has  been  found  an  intimation  that  the  place  of  this  miracle 
was  near  Tiberias :  "  Howbeit  there  came  other  boats  from  Tiberias 
nigh  unto  the  place  where  they  did  eat  bread"  —  (Vul.,  a  Tiheriade 
juxta  locum  ubi  manducaverant panem.)  This  has  been  understood  as 
meaning  that  Tiberias  was  nigh  unto  the  place.  It  is  said  by  a  Lap- 
ide:  Hbic  2xUet  locum.  .  .  .  fuisse  juxta  Tiheriadem.  In  his  note 
on  Matt.  xiv.  18,  he  repeats  this,  and  puts  the  jilace  between  Tiberias 
and  Bethsaida,  and  of  course,  on  the  west  side. 

It  is  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  Lord  sought  "  a  desert "  or  "  un- 
inhabited "  place,  and  this  place  stood  in  some  local  relation  to  the 
city  Bethsaida,  probably  as  a  jiart  of  its  territory,  or  at  least  under 
its  jurisdiction.  Now,  if  we  put  the  place  of  the  feeding  on  tlie 
western  side  of  the  lake,  somewhere  between  Tiberias  and  Tell  Hum, 
we  must  put  Bethsaida  not  far  from  it;  but  if,  as  the  narratives 
show,  the  feeding  of  the  people  was  on  the  east  side,  we  must  put 
it  in  the  territory  of  Bethsaida  Julias.  The  statement  of  John  (vi. 
23)  is  to  the  effect  that  boats  from  Tiberias  on  the  west  side  came  to 
some  point  on  the  east  side  near  the  place  of  the  miracle. 


1  That  it  was  on  the  west  side  is  defended  by  Thrupp,  Journal  of  Class,  and  Sac. 
Philology,  ii.  200.    So  DeSaulcy. 


324  THE   LIFE   OP   OUR   LORD.  [Part  V. 

There  is  a  slight  seeming  discrepancy  in  the  statements  of 
Matthew  and  Mark  respecting  the  meeting  of  Jesiis  with  the 
multitude  that  followed  Him.  Matthew  relates  that  "  Jesus 
went  forth  and  saw  a  great  multitude,  and  was  moved  with  com- 
passion," etc.,  implying  that  He  had  already  reached  the  place 
He  sought  ere  the  crowds  came.  Mark  relates  that  the  crowds 
"outwent  them,,  and  came  together  unto  Him.  And  Jesus, 
when  He  came  out,"  ^.  e.,  from  the  ship,  "saw  much  people,  and 
was  moved  with  compassion  toward  them,"  etc.  "Whether  any 
discrepancy  exists  depends  upon  the  meaning  of  "went  forth," 
i^eX-&u)v,  in  Matthew.  Meyer  refers  it  to  His  coming  forth 
from  His  place  of  retirement.'  In  his  note  on  Mark  (vi.  34), 
Alford  remarks:  "  There  is  nothing  in  Matthew  to  imply  that  He 
had  reached  His  place  of  solitude  before  the  multitudes  came 
up."  There  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  why  the  "  went  forth  " 
in  Matthew,  should  be  differently  understood  from  the  "came 
out  "  of  Mark ;  the  word  in  both  cases  being  the  same,  and  in 
both  may  refer  to  His  coming  out  of  the  ship.  Lichtenstein 
reconciles  the  discrepancy  by  supposing  that  a  few  came  before 
Jesus  reached  the  shore,  but  unwilling  to  intrude  upon  Him 
waited  till  the  others  came,  so  that  He  had  a  little  interval  of 
retirement  ere  He  went  forth  to  heal  the  sick  and  teach. 

Some  have  supposed  that  John  (vi.  4)  mentions  the  fact  that 
"the  Passover  was  nigh,"  to  explain  why  so  great  a  company 
should  have  gathered  to  Him  of  men,  women,  and  children. 
They  were  composed,  at  least  in  part,  of  those  that  were  journey- 
ing toward  Jerusalem  to  keep  the  feast.^  Alexander,  on  the 
other  hand,  objects  that,  from  the  fact  that  they  had  nothing  to 
eat,  they  could  scarcely  be  a  caravan  of  pilgrims,  but  were  prob- 
ably just  come  froni  their  own  homes.  This  is  confirmed  by 
the  statement  in  verse  second,  giving  the  reason  why  they  fol- 
lowed Him,  because  of  the  healing  of  the  sick.  It  would  seem 
that  the  people  were  mostly  from  Capernaum,  Bethsaida,  and  the 
towns  adjacent.     (See   Mark  vi.  33.) 

It  was,  as  has  already  been  shown,  the  Lord's  desire  to  go 
privately  with  the  Apostles  across  the  sea,  and  thus  escape  the 


1  So  Norton,  Bengel,  Trench. 

2  So  Trench,  Mir.,  214;  Bengel,  Meyer,  Edersheim,  Westcott.    Alford  doubts. 


Part  v.]  FEEDING  OF  THE   FIVE   THOUSAND.  325 

multitudes;  but  as  His  preparations  to  depart  were  necessarily 
made  in  public,  and  the  departure  itself  was  in  sight  of  all,  He 
could  not  prevent  theni  from  following  Him.  It  strikingly 
marks  the  strong  hold  He  now  had  upon  the  people  at  large, 
that  so  great  a  number  should  follow  Him  so  far.  That  they 
sliould  be  able  to  keep  pace  with  those  in  the  boat,  will  not 
appear  strange  if  we  remember  the  relative  positions  of  Caper- 
naum and  Bethsaida,  as  already  defined.  From  the  former 
city,  which  we  identify  with  Tell  Hum,  to  the  entrance  of  the 
Jordan,  where  we  place  Bethsaida,  according  to  Robinson,  is 
one  hour  and  five  minutes,  or  about  two  and  a  half  geographical 
miles.  The  distance  from  the  entrance  of  the  Jordan  along  the 
eastern  shore  to  the  point  where  the  mountains  approach  the 
lake,  is  also  about  an  hour.  The  whole  distance,  then,  which 
the  people  from  Capernaum  had  to  travel,  was  not  more  than 
six  or  eight  miles ;  and  from  the  conformation  of  the  coast, 
could  be  almost  as  rapidly  passed  by  those  on  the  shore  as  by 
those  in  the  boat.  If  the  place  where  they  were  fed  was  two  or 
three  miles  up  the  river  on  the  east  bank,  the  distance  would  be 
a  little  less.  Edersheim  puts  it  some  three  or  four  miles;  Tris- 
tram, some  two  miles.  In  this  case,  it  was  a  considerable  distance 
from  the  lake  shore.  Greswell,'  who  puts  this  Bethsaida  at  the 
southeastern  angle  of  the  lake,  supposes  that  Jesus  set  out  from 
Capernaum  in  the  evening,  and  landed  at  Bethsaida  in  the 
morning;  and  that  the  people,  who  ran  before  on  foot,  travelled 
all  night,  a  distance  of  about  sixteen  Roman  miles.  This  needs 
no  refutation. 

The  presence  of  this  multitude  that  had  followed  Him  so  far, 
awakened  the  Lord's  compassion  ;  and  receiving  them,  He 
"spake  unto  them  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  healed  them 
that  had  need  of  healing"  (Luke  ix.  11).  From  John's  lan- 
guage (vi.  5),  it  would  seem  that  the  Lord  first  addressed  Philip 
with  the  inquiry,  "Whence  shall  we  buy  bread  that  these  may 
eat  ?  "  According  to  the  Synoptists,  it  was  the  disciples  who 
proposed  to  Him  that  He  should  send  them  away  that  they 
might  buy  themselves  victuals.  But  none  of  the  Evangelists 
narrate  all  the  conversation  that  passed  between  Jesus  and  the 

1  ii.  344,  note. 


326  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part   V. 

disciples.  Probably  the  disciples  first  proposed  to  send  the  peo- 
ple away  to  get  food,  and  lie  replies,  "  Give  ye  them  to  eat  " 
(Mark  vi.  35-37).  This  leads  to  a  general  conversation  in  which 
He  specially  addresses  Philip,  and  asks  where  bread  could  be 
bought.  He  then  directs  them  to  make  inquiry  how  many 
loaves  they  had.  After  making  inquiry,  Andrew  reports  that 
there  were  five  barley  loaves  and  two  small  fishes,  and  hereupon 
He  proceeds  to  feed  the  multitude.  As  residents  of  Bethsaida, 
Philip  and  Andrew  would  naturally  know  better  than  the  other 
Apostles  how  food  could  be  procured  in  that  region. 

The  effect  of  this  miracle  upon  the  minds  of  those  present 
was  very  great.  So  mighty  and  wonderful  an  exhibition  of 
power,  reminding  them,  perhaps,  of  the  feeding  of  their  fathers 
in  the  wilderness  by  Moses,  led  them  to  say,  ''  This  is  of  a  truth 
that  prophet  that  should  come  into  the  world."  We  can  scarce 
doubt  from  the  context  that  they  meant  the  Messiah,  for  so 
great  was  their  enthusiasm  that  they  proposed  among  themselves 
to  take  Him  by  force  and  make  Him  king  (John  vi.  14,  15).  It 
is  said  by  Pressens^:  "  The  multitudes  are  ravished,  enthusiastic; 
now,  indeed,  they  believe  that  they  have  found  the  Messiah  after 
their  own  heart."  ^hus,  the  effect  of  the  miracle  was  to  confirm 
them  in  their  false  Messianic  hopes,  for  they  interpreted  it  as  a 
sign  and  pledge  of  the  highest  temporal  prosperity  under  His 
rule,  who  could  not  only  heal  the  sick  of  all  their  diseases,  but 
feed  five  thousand  men  with  five  loaves  of  barley  bread.^  Hence, 
He  must  immediately  dismiss  them.  It  appears  from  Matthew 
and  Mark  that  He  sent  away  the  disciples  first,  perhaps  that  the 
excitement  of  the  multitude  might  not  seize  upon  them.  That 
they  were  unwilling  to  leave  Him,  and  that  He  was  obliged  to 
"constrain"  them  to  depart,  is  not  strange,  if  we  remember 
that  they  knew  no  way  by  which  He  could  rejoin  them  but  by  a 
long  walk  along  the  shore;  and  this  in  the  solitude  and  darkness 
of  the  night,  for  it  was  evening  when  they  left  the  place.  (Com- 
pare Matt.  xiv.  15,  23,  where  both  evenings,  the  early  and 
late,  are  distinguished.)  Aside  from  their  reluctance  to  leave 
Him  alone  at  such  an  hour,  there  may  also  have  been  fear  upon 
their  own  part  of  crossing  the  lake  in  the  night,  remembering 
their  great  peril  from  which  He  had  a  little  while  before  deliv- 


Part  v.]      JESUS  JOINS  HIS  DISCIPLES  UPON  THE  SEA.      327 

ered  them  (Matt.  viii.  24)  and  perhaps  also,  seeing  signs  of  an 
approaching  storm. 

After  His  disciples  had  departed,  the  Lord  proceeded  to  dis- 
miss the  multitude,  perhaps  now  more  willing  to  leave  Him  that 
they  saw  His  special  attendants  had  gone.  So  soon  as  all  had 
left  Him,  He  went  up  into  the  mountain  alone  to  pray  —  the 
second  instance  mentioned  of  a  night  so  spent;  the  first  being 
the  night  prior  to  the  choice  of  Apostles  (Luke  vi.  12,  13),  and 
both  marking  important  points  in  His  life. 

The  details  of  the  voyage  of  the  disciples  in  their  topograph- 
ical bearings,  have  been  already  considered  (p.  233),  and  need 
not  be  re-stated  here.  We  assume  that  the  place  where  the  peo- 
ple were  fed  was  the  southern  angle  of  the  plain  of  Butaiha, 
where  the  mountains  meet  the  lake.  From  this  point  the  Apos- 
tles, to  reach  Capernaum,  would  pass  near  Bethsaida  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Jordan;  and  as  Jesus  proceeding  along  the  shore 
must  necessarily  pass  througli  it,  we  find  no  difficulty  in  sup- 
posing that  they  directed  their  course  toward  it  with  the  design 
of  stopping  there,  and  taking  Him  with  them  into  the  boat  when 
He  should  arrive.  This  is  plainly  intimated  by  Mark  vi.  45,* 
and  is  wholly  consistent  with  John  vi.  17.  This  latter  passage 
is  thus  translated  by  Alford:  '■  They  were  making  for  the  other 
side  of  the  sea  in  the  direction  of  Capernaum."  He  adds:  "  It 
would  appear  as  if  the  disciples  were  lingering  along  shore, 
with  the  expectation  of  taking  in  Jesus;  but  night  had  fallen 
and  He  had  not  yet  come  to  them,  and  the  sea  began  to  be 
stormy."  "The  great  wind  that  blew  "  and  the  tossing  waves 
made  all  their  efforts  to  reach  Bethsaida  useless.  Nor  could 
they  even  make  Capernaum.  In  spite  of  all  their  endeavors, 
they  were  driven  out  into  the  middle  of  the  lake  and  southerly, 
down  opposite  the  plain  of  Gennesaret. 

Thomson  (ii.  32),  referring  to  this  night  voyage  of  the  disci- 
ples, says:  "My  experience  in  this  region  enables  me  to  sympa- 
thize with  the  disciples  in  their  long  night's  contest  with  the 


1  See  Wieseler,  2?4,  note  1;  Newcome,  2G3.  "They  were  to  make  Bethsaida  in 
their  passage,  at  which  place  it  was  understood  that  Jesus  was  to  meet  them  by  land, 
there  to  embark  with  them."  So  Eders.,  i.  690;  Rob.,  iii.  358:  "  The  apparent  discrepancy 
between  Mark  and  John  disappears  at  once,  if  Bethsaida  lay  near  to  Capernaum,  and  if 
the  disciples  intended  first  to  touch  at  the  former  place  before  landing  at  the  latter." 


328  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  V. 

wind.  1  spent  a  night  in  that  Wady  Shukaiyif,  some  three 
miles  up  it,  to  the  left  of  us.  The  sun  had  scarcely  set,  when 
the  wind  began  to  rush  down  toward  the  lake,  and  it  continued 
all  night  long  with  constantly  increasing  violence,  so  that  when 
we  readied  the  shore  next  naorning,  the  face  of  the  lake  was  like 
a  huge  boiling  caldron.  The  wind  howled  down  every  wady, 
from  the  northeast  and  east,  with  such  fury  that  no  efforts  of 
rowers  could  have  brought  a  boat  to  shore  at  any  point  along 
that  coast.  In  a  wind  like  that,  the  disciples  must  have  been 
driven  quite  across  to  Gennesaret,  as  we  know  they  were.  We 
subsequently  pitched  our  tents  at  the  shore,  and  remained  for 
three  days  and  nights  exposed  to  this  tremendous  wind.  No 
wonder  the  disciples  toiled  and  rowed  hard  all  that  night,  and 
how  natui-al  their  amazement  and  terror  at  the  sight  of  Jesus 
walking  on  the  waves.  The  wliole  lake,  as  we  had  it,  was  lashed 
into  fury;  the  waves  repeatedly  rolled  up  to  our  tent  door, 
tumbling  on  the  ropes  with  such  violence  as  to  carry  away  the 
tent  pins."  The  width  of  the  sea  opposite  the  plain  of  Gen- 
nesaret is  about  six  miles,  and  the  disciples,  who  "had  rowed 
about  five  and  twenty  or  thirty  furlongs  "  when  Jesus  met  them, 
were  thus  something  more  than  half  the  way  over.  As  this 
was  "about  the  fourth  watch  of  the  night"  (Mark  vi.  48),  or 
from  3-6  a.  m.,  the  disciples  must  have  been  struggling  against 
the  wind  and  waves  some  eight  or  ten  hours. 

The  incident  respecting  Peter's  attempt  to  walk  on  the  water 
to  meet  Jesus  is  mentioned  only  by  Matthew.  That  after  he 
had  been  rescued  they  entered  the  ship,  is  expressly  said:  "  And 
when  they  were  come  into  the  ship,  the  wind  ceased  "  (Matt.  xiv. 
32).  In  like  manner  Mark  (vi.  51):  "And  He  went  up  unto 
them  into  the  ship;  and  the  wind  ceased."  But  with  this  John's 
narrative  has  been  thought  by  some  to  be  in  contradiction  (vi. 
21):  "Then  they  willingly  received  Him  into  the  ship,  TJOeXoi' 
ovv  Xaftelv  avrbv  elq  to  ttIoIov;  and  immediately  the  ship  was 
at  the  land  whither  they  went"  (R.  V.,  "They  were  wilhng 
therefore  to  receive  Him  into  the  boat ").  It  is  said  that  the 
disciples  willed  or  desired  to  take  Him  into  the  ship  with  them, 
but  did  not,  because  the  ship  immediately  came  to  the  shore.' 


1  So  Meyer,  in  loco;  Bleek,  Beitrage,  28. 


Part  v.]        JESUS  IN  THE   LAND   OF  GENNESARET.  329 

Tholuck,  however,  defends  the  translation  of  Beza,  "they 
received  Him  with  willingness,"  which  is  the  same  as  our 
English  version.'  ''John  mentions  the  will  only,  assuming  that 
every  reader  would  understand  that  the  will  was  carried  into 
effect "  (M.  and  M).  Some  deny  that  the  ship  came  to  the  shore 
by  miracle,  but  suppose  that  it  came  rapidly  in  comparison  with 
the  earlier  part  of  the  voyage,  the  wind  having  subsided  and  the 
sea  become  smooth.^  On  the  other  hand,  Luthardt  and  most 
rightly  regard  it  as  supernatural. 

April,  782.     A.D.   29. 

The  people  of  Gennesaret,  so  soon  as  they  know  that    Matt.  xiv.  34-36. 
Jesus  has  landed  upon  their  coasts,  hring  unto  Him  their 
sick,  who  are  healed  by  only  touching  the  hem  of  His    Mark  vi.  53-56. 
garment.     Those  whom  He  had  fed,  and  who  had  spent    John  vi.  22-59. 
the  night  upon  the  eastern  shore,  now  returning  seek 
Him  at  Capernaum,  whither  He  goes.     In  answer  to  their 
question  how  He  came  over  the  sea,  He  discourses  to 
them  concerning  the  bread  of  life.     His  words  are  so 
offensive  to  many  of  His  disciples  that  they  henceforth    John  vi.  60-66. 
forsake  Him.     Tlie  Twelve  continue  with  Him,  but  He    John  vi.  67-71. 
declares  that  one  of  them  is  a  devil. 

The  language  of  Matthew  and  of  Mark  is  so  express  in  connect- 
ing these  miracles  of  healing  with  the  return  after  the  feeding 
of  the  five  thousand,  that  there  is  no  room  for  doubt  that  they 
then  took  place.  It  is  not,  however,  necessary  to  regard  their 
statements  as  descriptive  of  an  activity  confined  to  that  one  day, 
but  rather  as  embracing  the  whole  period  after  His  return  till  He 
again  departed.  All  the  accounts  of  this  period  indicate  that 
He  had  now  come  to  the  culminating  point  of  His  labers. 
Never  was  His  popularity  so  great,  and  never  His  mighty 
power  so  marvellously  displayed.  He  could  go  nowhere,  into 
country,  or  village,  or  city,  that  they  did  not  bring  the  sick  into 
the  streets,  that  they  might  at  least  touch  the  hem  of  His  gar- 
ment; "and  as  many  as  touched  were  made  perfectly  whole." 
The  fact  that  the  men  of  Gennesaret  "  sent  out  into  all  that 
country  round  about  and  brought  unto  Him  all  that  were 
diseased"  (Matt.  xiv.  35),  indicates  their  great  confidence  in  His 


1  Alford;  see  Winer,  Gram.,  363;  Trench,  Mir.,  228,  note;  Eders.,  i.  692;  Godet,  in 

2  Alford,  Tholuck. 


330  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  l'-^^^^'^  ^' 

ability  and  willingness  to  heal  all  that  should  be  brought  to 
Him ;  and  perhaps  also  their  expectation  that,  according  to  His 
custom,  He  would  soon  depart  to  other  fields  of  labor. 

Of  those  who  had  been  present  among  the  five  thousand, 
some,  and  probably  many,  remained  in  the  villages  and  towns 
on  the  eastern  and  northern  shores  during  the  night.  The 
statement  of  John  (vi.  22-25),  though  not  without  grammatical 
difficulties,  is  clear  as  to  its  general  meaning.  The  multitude 
saw  that  the  disciples  had  gone  in  the  boat  in  which  they  came, 
and  that  the  Lord  was  not  with  them,  and  naturally  inferred 
that  He  was  still  somewhere  in  the  neighborhood,  and  that  the 
disciples  would  return  the  next  morning  to  rejoin  Him;  but 
when  in  the  morning  they  saw  boats  come  over  from  Tiberias, 
and  that  the  disciples  were  not  in  them,  and  that  Jesus  was  not 
to  be  found,  they  took  the  same  boats,  and  went  to  Capernaum 
to  find  Him.  These  boats  may  have  been  sent  over  by  the 
boatmen  from  Tiberias  for  passengers,  the  gathering  of  the 
crowd  on  the  eastern  shore  being  now  known.  As  He  had 
landed  very  early  upon  the  plain  of  Gennesaret,  for  it  was  about 
the  fourth  watch  when  He  met  the  disciples,  He  had  probably, 
ere  their  arrival,  reached  the  city.  The  discourse  concerning 
the  bread  of  life  was  spoken  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum 
(John  vi.  59),  and  most  probably  upon  the  Sabbath.  Still,  no 
certain  inference  can  be  drawn  from  this  mention  of  the 
synagogue,  as  it  was  used  for  teaching  upon  other  days  than  the 
Sabbath.'  According  to  Lightfoot,  it  may  have  been  on  a 
Monday  or  Thursday.  Edersheim  (ii.  4),  assuming  that  this 
was  a  Sabbath  and  reckoning  backward,  gives  the  following 
order  of  events:  Jesus  left  Capernaum  to  go  aci'oss  the  lake  on 
a  Thursday,  and  on  that  evening  was  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand,  and  other  events;  on  Friday  those  remaining  on  the 
east  side  returned  ;  and  on  Saturday  He  met  them  in  the  syna- 
gogue, where  He  made  a  discourse.  Wieseler  (Syn.,  276)  makes 
the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  to  have  been  on  the  14th  Nisan 
or  16th  April,  at  the  same  time  when  the  paschal  lamb  was 
eaten  at  Jerusalem;  and  this  day,  therefore,  was  the  15th  of 
Nisan,  or  the  first  feast  Sabbath.^     But  this  is  inconsistent  with 


I  Winer,  iL  549.  2  go  Tischendorf. 


Fart  v.]  DISCOURSE   AT   CAPERNAUM.  3^1 

the  notice  of  John  (vi.  4),  that  the  Passover  was  nigh,  which 
implies  that  an  interval  of  a  day  at  least,  if  not  of  days,  inter- 
vened. 

It  is  in  question  whether  this  discourse  was  spoken  all  at 
once  on  this  day  and  in  the  synagogue,  or  on  successive  days. 
Some  think  that  all  from  verses  2(i  to  41  was  spoken  to  the 
multitudes,  and  before  the  Passover;  and  all  from  verses  41  to 
58  was  spoken  later,  and  after  the  Passover.  The  data  are  not 
sufficient  to  warrant  this  inference.  (As  to  the  divisions  of 
the  discourse,  see  Eders.,  ii.  26;  Westcott,  and  Luthardt,  in 
loco.) 

It  has  been  often  said  that  the  Lord  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to 
this  Passover.  (So  Lightfoot.)  Luthardt  tliinks  that  the  people 
here  gathered  went  up  also  with  Him.  But  for  this  there  is  no 
good  ground,  and,  when  viewed  in  the  light  of  their  desire  to 
make  Him  king,  it  is  most  improbable.  The  suggestion  of  Godet 
that  the  Lord  regarded  this  feeding  of  the  multitude  as  His 
passover,  and  in  contrast  with  the  paschal  feast  in  Jerusalem,  is 
fanciful;  nor  is  there  any  reason  to  attach  a  sacramental  charac- 
ter to  it,  as  many  have  done. 

This  discourse  of  the  Lord  so  offended  many  of  His  disciples 
that  from  this  time  they  walked  no  more  with  Him.  Up  to 
this  time  His  works  of  healing  had  been  so  many  and  marvellous, 
that  notwithstanding  the  open  hostility  of  the  scribes  and  Phari- 
sees, the  people  continued  to  gather  to  Him  in  crowds.  /And 
the  last  miracle,  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  was  such  an 
exhibition  of  power  that  it  affected  the  popular  imagination  far 
more  than  many  cases  of  individual  heaHng,  or  even  than  the 
two  instances  of  the  raising  of  the  dead.  The  time  had  now 
come  when  the  true  believers  among  the  miscellaneous  multitude 
must  be  separated.  The  Lord  would  find  those  who  had  ears 
to  hear  the  higher  truths  respecting  His  Person  and  the  purpose 
of  the  Father  in  Him,  which  He  wished  them  to  know  before 
He  was  taken  from  them.  This  separation  could  be  effected  in 
no  external  way;  but  according  to  the  measure  of  spiritual  dis- 
cernment. He  would  find  those  who  would  follow  Him  because 
of  the  truth  of  His  words,  not  as  dazzled  by  the  splendor  of 
His  works.     His  teaching  respecting  Himself  as  the  Bread  of 


333  THE   LIFE    OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  V". 

Life  which  came  down  out  of  heaven,  was  a  crucial  test.  It  was 
doubtless  "a  hard  saying"  even  to  the  most  discerning  of  the 
Apostles;  and  to  many  of  the  disciples,  perhaps  to  a  majority,  they 
were  so  repellent  that  they  now  turned  away  from  Him.  The 
answer  of  Peter  to  the  question  addressed  to  the  Twelve,  "  Will 
ye  also  go  away?"  marks  a  crisis  in  their  relations  to  Him.  Now, 
for  the  first  time,  so  far  as  we  know,  there  was  a  defection  among 
His  disciples.  Plis  teachings  were  too  high  for  them,  even  when 
confirmed  by  such  great  miracles.  But  it  was  His  words,  not 
His  works,  that  held  the  Twelve  faithful.  "  Thou  hast  the 
words  of  eternal  life,"  said  Peter.  The  right  reading  of  the 
confession  of  Peter  immediately  following  this  is,  according  to 
Tischendorf  : '  "  And  we  believe  and  are  sure  that  thou  art  the 
Holy  One  of  God  ;  "  (R.  V. :  "  And  we  have  believed  and  know 
that  thou  art  the  Holy  One  of  God.")  This  confession  is  to  be 
distinguished  from  that  made  later  (see  Matt.  xvi.  16),  which 
displays  a  higher  knowledge  of  the  mystery  of  the  Lord's 
Person. 

Summer,  782.     A.  D.  29. 

While  still  at  Capernaum,   some   of  the  scribes  and    Matt.  xt.  1-20. 
Pharisees  who  have  come  from  Jerusalem,  see  His  dis-    Mark  vii.  1-23. 
ciples  eating  with  unwashed  hands,  and  find  fault.     This 
leads  to  a  discussion  of  Pharisaic  traditions    and  sharp 
reproofs  of    their  hypocrisy.      Leaving    Capernaum,   He 
goes  with  the  Twelve  into  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,     Matt.  xv.  21-28. 
avoiding  all  publicity.     But  He  can  not  be  hid,   and  a    Mark  vii.  24-30. 
woman  of  that  region  coming  to  Him  with  urgent  request, 
He  heals  her  daughter.     From  thence  He  departs  to  the 
region  of  Decapolis,  where  He  heals  many,  and  one  with    Matt.  xv.  29-39. 
an  impediment  in  his  speech,  and  afterward  feeds  a  multi-    Mark  vii.  31-37. 
tude  of  4,000  persons.     Recrossing  the  sea  He  returns  to    Mark  viii.  1-10. 
Capernaum. 

How  long  after  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  the  Lord 
continued  at  Capernaum,  we  cannot  tell ;  but  it  is  plain  that  He 
was  found  there  by  the  Pharisees  and  scribes  which  came  down 
from  Jerusalem.  Edersheim  (ii.  7)  puts  the  eating  with  un- 
washed hands  on  the  day  of  the  Lord's  return  from  Bethsaida, 
and  on  the  way  to  Capernaum,  and  before  the  discourse  in  the 
synagogue  there  ;    McClellan,  some  two  months  after  the  dis- 


So  W.  and  H.,  Meyer;  Eilicott,  undecided. 


Part  v.]     PHARISEES  AND  SCRIBES  FROM  JERUSALEM.      333 

course;  but  most  follow  the  order  of  Matthew.  That  this  was 
as  Wieseler  maintains/  upon  the  15th  Nisan,  the  day  when  he 
supposes  the  discourse  in  the  synagogue  to  have  been  delivered, 
is  highly  improbable.  It  is  not  likely  that  His  enemies  would 
leave  Jerusalem  till  the  Passover  was  fully  over.^  Much  earlier 
in  the  Lord's  ministry,  as  we  have  seen,  a  deputation  of  scribes 
had.  been  sent  from  Jerusalem  to  watch  and  oppose  Him.  The 
presence  of  this  new  deputation  may  be  ascribed  to  tlie  reports 
that  had  been  borne  to  that  city  by  the  pilgrims  going  to  the 
feast,  of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  and  of  the  wish  of  the 
people  to  make  Him  king.  So  great  a  miracle,  and  its  effect  on 
the  popular  mind,  could  not  be  overlooked,  and  they  hastened  to 
counteract,  if  possible.  His  growing  influence.  Arriving  at 
Capernaum,  and  watchful  to  seize  every  possible  ground  of 
accusation  against  Him,  they  noticed  that  some  of  His  disciples 
did  not  wash  their  hands  in  the  prescribed  manner  before  eating; 
a  sign  that  they  w«re  already  in  some  degree  becoming  indiffer- 
ent to  Pharisaic  traditions.^  The  words  of  the  Lord  in  reply  to 
the  Pharisees  are  full  of  severity,  and  show  that  He  knew  that 
they  were,  and.  would  continue  to  be,  His  enemies.  Now  for 
the  first  time  He  addresses  them  openly  as  hypocrites,  and  re- 
proaches them,  that  they  set  aside  by  their  traditions  the  com- 
mandments of  God.  He  proceeds  to  address  the  people  upon 
the  distinction  between  internal  and  external  defilement;  and 
afterward,  when  He  was  alone  with  the  disciples,  He  explains 
to  them  more  clearly  what  He  had  said.  Afterward  He  goes 
with  the  Twelve  into  the  region  of  Tyre  and  Sidon. 

Many  ascribe  the  dejiarture  of  the  Lord  into  Phcenician  territory 
to  the  fear  of  Herod.  (So  Keim.)  But  there  is  no  evidence  of  this. 
If  Herod  had  really  wished  to  arrest  Him,  it  would  have  been  easy 
for  him  to  do  so  when  the  Lord  returned,  as  He  did  later,  to  Caper- 
naum. And  when  the  Lord  was  in  Persea  after  He  had  left  Galilee, 
He  was  still  within  Herod's  jurisdiction,  and  yet  was  unmolested. 
(The  message  of  the  Pharisees,  Luke  xiii.  31,  will  be  later  examined.) 
If  the  king  had  felt  any  apprehension  of  political  disturbance  from 
His  Messianic  claims,  he  must  have  known  that,  aside  from  the  oppo- 

1  Syn.,  311,  note  1. 

2  Tischendorf,  Greswell. 

3  As  to  these  traditions,  sec  Lightfoot,  Har.,  in  loco  ;  Edersheim,  ii.  8,  who  suggestg 
tha/  the  real  offense  was,  that  the  five  thousand  ate  with  unwashed  hands, 


334  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  V. 

sition  to  Him  of  the  Pharisees,  His  position  was  so  much  au  enigma 
to  the  people  that  tliey  were  falling  away  from  Him.  (So  Weiss, 
iii.  42.)  Others  make  Him  to  have  left  Galilee  through  fear  of  the 
Pharisees.  (So  Greswell,  ii.  354,  who  thinks  His  object  was  conceal- 
ment.) But  these  had  no  power  to  arrest  Him,  or  to  interfere  with 
His  labors,  except  by  seeking  to  entrap  Him  upon  points  of  the  law, 
and  otherwise  to  annoy  Him,  and  to  turn  away  the  people  from  Him 
by  threats  of  excommunication.  The  obvious  ground  of  His  retire- 
ment was  not  to  escape  personal  danger  but  for  the  instruction  of  His 
disciples. 

It  has  been  questioned  whether  the  Lord  went  merely  to  the 
borders  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  or  actually  crossed  them  (Matt.  xv. 
21;  Mark  vii.  24).'  Some  light  may  be  cast  on  this  point  if  we 
consider  His  motive  in  the  journey.  That  it  was  not  to  teach 
publicly  seems  plain  from  Mark's  words  (vii.  24),  "  He  would 
have  no  man  know  it."  He  desired  that  His  arrival  should  be 
kept  secret.  As  He  had  directed  the  Twelve  when  upon  their 
mission,  not  to  "go  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles"  to  preach,  it 
is  not  probable  that  He  would  now  do  so.  Nor  is  there  any 
mention  of  teaching  and  healing,  except  in  the  case  of  the  wo 
man  and  her  daughter.  His  motive  in  this  journey  obviously 
was  to  find  the  seclusion  and  rest  which  He  had  sought  but  in 
vain,  to  find  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake,  and  could  not  find  in 
Capernaum.  He  hoped  on  the  remote  frontiers  of  Galilee  to 
escape  for  a  time  popixlar  attention,  and  to  be  hid  from  the 
crowds  that  followed  Him.  It  was  for  the  Twelve  that  He 
sought  a  temporary  retirement,  and  to  them  did  He  address 
His  teachings. 

It  would  not  then  be  inconsistent  with  His  purpose  that  He 
should  enter  the  heathen  provinces  of  Tyre  and  Sidon.  Some 
have  objected  that  He  would  not  have  entered  heathen  territory, 
since  He  would  thus  become  ceremonially  defiled.  But  the  fear 
of  this  could  scarcely  have  affected  His  action.  In  this 
region  He  may  obtain  a  little  interval  of  repose.  Rut  He  cannot 
be  hid,  and  after  healing  the  daughter  of  the  Syrophoenican  wo- 
man in  answer  to  her  importunity,   He   is   compelled  to  leave 


>  In  favor  of  the  latter,  Alford,  Alexander,  Bleek,  DeWette,  Greswell;  of  the  for- 
mer, Stier  and  Meyer,  who  refer  to  Matt.  xv.  22,  as  showing  that  the  Syrophcenician 
woman  came  out  of  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  to  meet  Jesus,  so  that  He  was  not  within 
them.    Keil  thinks  it  cannot  be  decided. 


Part    v.]  JESUS   AT  TYRE   AND   SIDON.  335 

that  region.  The  route  He  followed  is  uncertain.  It  is  said  by- 
Mark  (vii.  31):  "And  again  departing  from  the  coasts  of  Tyre 
and  Sidon,  He  came  unto  the  Sea  of  Galilee  through  the  midst  of 
the  coasts  of  Decapolis."  (R.  V.,  "  He  went  out  from  the  borders 
of  Tyre,  and  came  through  Sidon  unto  the  Sea  of  Galilee "). 
"  As  most  of  the  cities  of  the  Decapolis  were  situated  southeast 
of  the  Sea  of  Tiberias,  it  is  not  improbable  that  our  Lord,  hav- 
ing gone  to  the  east  of  Phoenicia  through  Upper  Galilee,  returned 
thence,  by  way  of  Lower  Galilee  through  the  plain  of  Esdraelon, 
to  Bethshean  (Scythopolis),  the  only  city  of  Decapolis  which  is 
to  the  west  of  Jordan.  Here  He  would  cross  the  river,  perhaps 
at  the  bridge  now  called  Jisr  Majumah,  then  possibly  make  a 
circuit  about  the  district  of  Pella  and  Philadelphia  to  the  south, 
about  Gerasa  to  the  east,  and  Gadara,  Dios,  and  Hippo  to  the 
north.  Thus  He  would  '  come  unto  the  Sea  of  Galilee  through  the 
midst  of  the  coasts  of  Decapolis.'  "  '  But  according  to  the  reading 
of  Tischendorf  :  ?  "  Departing  from  the  coasts  of  Tyre  He  came 
through  Sidon  —  did  Sidwvoc  —  to  the  Sea  of  Galilee."  He  went 
therefore  northward  from  Tyre,  and  passing  through  Sidon,  not 
the  city  but  the  territory  (^contra,  Keil),  probably  proceeded  along 
the  Phoenician  border  line  to  the  Jordan,  near  Dan'  (Laish),  and 
journeying  along  its  eastern  bank  came  to  the  Decapolis.  He  may 
thus  have  visited  the  province  of  Herod  Philip  and  Csesarea 
Philippi,  although  no  special  mention  is  made  of  it.  "  He  went 
first  northward  (perhaps  for  the  same  reason  of  privacy  as  be- 
fore) through  Sidon,  then  crossed  the  Jordan,  and  so  approached 
the  lake  on  its  east  side."  *  How  long  the  Lord  continued  in 
Gentile  territory  we  do  not  know.  Weiss  says  several  months; 
there  is  no  ground  for  this.     It  may  have  been  as  many  weeks. 

"What  part  of  the  Decapolis  the  Lord  visited  is  not  mentioned 
by  any  of  the  Evangelists.  Under  this  title  were  included  ten 
cities,  eight  or  nine  of  which  were  on  the  east  side  of  the  Jor- 
dan, and  east  or  southeast  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  It  is  spoken  of 
by  Josephus  as  a  well-known  territorial  designation,  embracing 
towns  and  villages.     After  Syria  had  been    conquered  by   the 


1  G.  Williams,  in  "The  Messiah,"  268,  note. 

»  So  W.  and  H.,  Meyer,  and  Alford. 

'  Josephus,  War,  iii.  .3.  1. 

*  Alford;  see  Lichtenstein,  284;  Lindsay,  in  loco;  Weiss,  iii.  41. 


336  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  V. 

Romans,  ten  cities  seem,  on  some  grounds  not  well  known,  to 
have  been  placed  under  certain  peculiar  municipal  arrange- 
ments, and  brought  directly  under  Roman  rule.  It  is  probable 
that  their  population  was  chiefly  heathen.  The  names  of  the 
ten  cities  are  differently  given.  To  the  original  ten  cities  others 
were  probably  added,  though  at  no  time  do  they  seem  to  have 
constituted  a  distinct  province.' 

It  is  impossible  to  tell  where  the  healing  of  the  deaf  man  with 
an  impediment  in  his  speech  took  place  (Mark  vii.  32).  It  may 
have  been  one  of  the  cures  mentioned  by  Matthew  (xv.  29-31), 
and  it  was  near  the  sea,  and  in  the  region  of  the  Decapolis ;  but 
why  Jesus  enjoined  silence  upon  the  deaf  man  and  his  friends, 
when  He  directed  the  demoniacs  at  Gergesa  to  make  their  heal- 
ing known,  we  cannot  tell.  The  injunction  of  silence  was  not 
heeded:  "The  more  He  charged  them,  so  much  the  more  a 
great  deal  they  published  it."  The  effect  of  this  was,  as  related 
by  Matthew,  a  great  gathering  to  Him  of  "the  lame,  blind, 
dumb,  maimed,  and  many  others,"  whom  He  healed.  Both 
Matthew  and  Mark  speak  of  the  wonder  and  astonishment  of  the 
multitude  as  they  saw  these  healings.  It  is  to  be  remembered 
that  Jesus  had  not  visited  this  region  at  all,  except  for  the  few 
hours  when  He  healed  the  demoniacs  of  Gergesa,  and  afterward 
when  He  fed  the  five  thousand;  and  the  great  body  of  the  peo- 
ple now  saw  Him  for  the  first  time.  The  expression  (Matt.  xv. 
31),  "  they  glorified  the  God  of  Israel, "  may  indicate  that  part 
of  the  multitude  were  heathen,  and  now  glorified  Jehovah  in  con- 
trast with  their  own  deities ;  or  it  may  have  reference  to  the  Jews 
as  dwelling  among  the  heathen,  who  saw  in  these  miracles  new 
proofs  of  the  power  of  their  God,  before  whom  all  others  were 
but  idols. 

Three  days  this  great  concourse  of  people  to  the  number  of 
four  thousand,  continued  with  the  Lord,  beholding  His  works, 
and  listening  to  His  words;  and  at  their  close  He  fed  them  with 
the  seven  loaves  and  a  few  fishes.  The  place  where  they  were 
assembled  was,  beyond  question,  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake, 
and  some  suppose  at  the  same  place  where  He  had  fed  the  five 
thousand.^     Matthew  (xv.  2!))  relates  that  "  He  came  nigh  unto 

1  See  Winer,  i.  26.3;  Smith's  Diet,  of  Bible,  i.  419;  Schurer,  ii.  118. 

2  So  Trench,  Mir.,  285;  Greswell,  ii.  357. 


Part  v.]         FEEDING  OF   THE   FOUR  THOUSAND.  337 

the  Sea  of  Galilee,  and  went  up  into  a  mountain  and  sat  down 
there."  The  use  of  the  article,  to  opog,  "the  mountain,"  does 
not  determine  the  spot,  as  it  may  be  used  to  denote  the  high 
land  in  distinction  from  the  lake  shore.  It  seems,  however,  more 
probable  that  it  was  at  some  point  near  the  south  end  of  the 
lake,  as  several  cities  of  the  Decapolis  were  in  that  vicinity. 
Caspari  thinks  it  was  south  of  the  place  of  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand;  Edersheim,  in  the  Decapolis  near  the  eastern  shore. 
Ellicott '  suggests  that  its  site  may  have  been  "  the  high  ground  " 
in  the  neighborhood  of  the  ravine  nearly  opposite  to  Magdala, 
which  is  now  called  "  Wady  Semak."  While  there  are  several 
points  of  resemblance  between  this  miracle  and  that  of  the  feeding 
of  the  five  thousand,  there  are  many  of  difference :  as  to  the  number 
of  persons  fed,  the  quantity  of  food,  the  quantity  of  fragments 
gathered  up,  the  time  the  multitude  had  been  with  Jesus,  and 
the  events  both  preceding  and  following  the  miracle.  (See 
Mark  viii.  19  ff.,  where  the  Lord  distinguishes  the  two.)  It  is 
probable  that  many  of  the  four  thousand  were  heathen,  or  those 
who  had  come  from  the  east  side  of  the  sea;  while  most  of  the 
five  thousand  seem  to  have  followed  Him  from  the  western 
shore.  ^ 

After  sending  away  the  multitudes.  He  took  ship,  perhaps 
the  ship  kept  specially  for  His  use,  and  crossed  the  sea.  He 
came,  according  to  Matthew  (xv.  39),  "  into  the  coasts  of  Mag- 
dala" (R.  V.  "into  the  borders  of  Magadan");  according  to 
Mark  (viii.  10),  "into  the  parts  of  Dalmanutha."  Magdala — 
tlie  Greek  form  of  Migdol  —  watch-tower  —  is  generally  identi- 
fied with  El  Mejdel,  a  miserable  village  on  the  south  side  of  the 
plain  of  Gennesaret,  near  the  lake.^  It  is  only  a  collection  of 
filthy  hovels  with  ruins  of  an  old  watch-tower,  but  was 
formerly  a  place  of  some  importance.  It  is  about  three  miles 
north  of  Tiberias,  and  probably  at  one  time  the  two  places  may 
have  been  closely  connected,  as  the  remains  of  buildings  are 
found  all  along  the  way  between  them. 

But  it  is  not  certain  that  this  Magdala  —  el  Mejdel  —  was 
the  place  to  which  the  Lord  went  after  the  feeding  of  the  four 
thousand  (Matthew  xv.  39).     The  reading  Magadan  is  adopted 


1  221,  note  1.  '  Trench,  Mir.,  S86. 

3  Rob.,  li.  397;  Porter,  ii.  431;  See,  contra,  Norton,  notes,  153. 
15 


33S  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  V. 

by  Tisch.,  "W.  and  H.,  and  Alford.  Are  Magdala  and  Magadan 
variations  of  the  one  name,  or  were  there  two  distinct  towns  bear- 
ing these  names  ?  (In  favor  of  the  former,  Gratz,  Rielim,  Herzog; 
of  the  latter,  Robinson,  Caspari,  Edersheim.)  If  we  accept  Maga- 
dan as  the  right  reading,  and  a  place  distinct  from  Magdala, 
where  was  it?  Caspari  says:  "The  region  of  Magadan  is  the 
western  domain  of  Scythopolis,  or  the  region  of  the  Ten  Cities 
on  this  side  Jordan."  Edersheim  (ii.  67)  would  put  Magadan 
south  of  the  lake,  and  near  the  border  of  Galilee,  but  within 
the  Decapolis;  he  does  not,  however,  assign  it  any  definite  posi- 
tion.    Ewald  would  identify  it  with  Megiddo  near  Mt.  Carmel. 

For  the  Magadan  of  Matthew,  Mark  (viii.  10)  has  Dalmanu- 
tha.  Are  we  to  identify  Magadan  and  Dalmanutha  ?  This  is 
said  by  Edersheim  (ii.  67):  "The  borders  of  Magadan  must 
evidently  refer  to  the  same  district  as  the  parts  of  Dalmanu- 
tha." If  not  different  names  for  the  same  place,  we  may  infer 
that  they  were  so  near  each  other  that  the  adjacent  territory 
might  be  called  from  either.  It  is  said  by  Lightfoot  (Choro. 
Decad.,  225)  that  Dalmanutha  is  the  name  of  a  town  or  village 
not  far  from  Magadan,  or  lying  within  its  territories;  and 
both  are  put  in  his  map  south  of  the  lake  and  east  of  the  Jordan. 
Some  later  writers  are  inclined  to  put  Dalmanutha  on  the 
south  or  southeast  of  the  lake.  Edersheim  (ii.  67),  on  etymo- 
logical grounds,  thinks  it  may  have  been  Tarichsea  at  the  exit  of 
the  Jordan.  Thomson  (Cen.  Pal.,  335)  speaks  of  the  rums  of  a 
considerable  town  on  the  east  bank  of  the  Jordan  five  miles  south 
of  the  lake,  called  Dalhuminyeh.  (In  Fischer  &  Guthe's  Map, 
Ed-Delhemije.)  This  is  apparently  the  same  place  meant  by 
Caspari  (106),  and  accepted  by  him  as  Dalmanutha. 

But  most,  identifying  Magadan  and  Magdala,  put  Dalmanu- 
tha near  it  on  the  west  shore.  Porter  and  Tristram  find  it  at 
Ain  el  Barideh,  lying  a  little  south  of  Magdala.  Keim  (ii.  528) 
thinks  Gadara  is  meant.  The  matter  is  unimportant,  except  as  to 
its  bearing  on  the  place  of  the  feeding  of  the  four  thousand. 
Did  the  Lord  after  this  event  return  to  the  west  shore,  or  did 
He  keep  within  the  limits  of  the  Decapolitan  territory  to  avoid 
the  Pharisees?  The  latter  view  is  not  in  itself  improbable;  it 
may  be  that  He  did  not  return  to  Capernaum  at  this  time,  but 


Part  v.]      PHARISEteS   SEEK  A   SIGN   FROM   HEAVEN.  339 

being  disturbed  by  the  Pharisees  who  sought  Him  at  Daluianii- 
tha,  He  crossed  the  lake  to  escape  them  (Mark  viii.  13).  Yet, 
upon  grounds  to  be  mentioned,  it  seems  more  probable  that 
Dalmanutha  was  near  Magdala,  and  that  He  returned  to  Caper- 
naum after  feeding  the  four  thousand.     (See  Weiss,  iii.  12.) 

Summer,  782.     A.D.  29. 

So  soon  as  Jesus  returns  to  Capernaum,  the  Pharisees    Matt.  xvi.  1-4. 
and  Saddueees  begin  to  tempt  Him  by  asking  a  sign  from    Mark.  viii.  11,  12. 
Heaven.     He  reproves  their  hypocrisy,  and  declares  that 
no  sign  shall  be  given  them  but  the  sign  of  the  prophet 
Jonas.     Leaving  them,  He  enters  a  ship,  and  again  de-    Matt.  xvi.  5-13. 
parts  across  the  lake  toward  Bethsaida.     Upon  the  way    Mauk  viii.  13-31. 
He  discourses  to  the  disciples  respecting  the  leaven  of 
the  Pharisees.     Arriving  at  Bethsaida,  He  heals  a  blind    Mark  viii.  23-26. 
man  and  sends  him  privately  home. 

It  Is  not  expressly  said  that  Jesus  went  from  Magdala,  or 
Dalmanutha,  to  Capernaum,  and  it  is  possible  that  He  may  have 
met  Pharisees  and  Saddueees  at  either  of  the  former  places;  yet 
as  the  latter  city  was  His  home,  to  which  He  returned  after  all 
His  circuits,  and  was  but  few  miles  from  Magdala,  we  have  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  He  went  thither  as  usual.  But  some,  as 
Farrar,  hold  that  He  was  at  Dalmanutha  or  Magdala,  and  that 
His  enemies  went  there  to  find  Him.  All  depends  on  the  posi 
tion  of  Dalmanutha;  if  it  was  in  Decapolitan  territory,  we  may 
infer  that  the  Lord  went  there  to  avoid  the  Pharisees  of  Galilee, 
and  that  they  sought  Him  out  in  His  retreat.  But  if  Dalmanutha 
was  near  Magdala  on  the  west  shore,  there  seems  no  good  reason 
why  He  should  not  have  gone  to  Capernaum,  and  the  Pharisees 
and  Saddueees  have  found  Him  there;  for  this  meeting  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  accidental  but  premeditated  on  their  part. 
It  is  the  first  time  the  latter  are  named  in  conjunction  with  the 
former,  as  acting  unitedly  in  opposition  to  Him.  Apparently  as 
a  party,  the  Saddueees  had  up  to  this  time  looked  upon  Him  with 
indifference,  if  not  contempt.  But  as  His  teachings  began  to 
expose  their  errors,  and  His  reputation  was  too  wide-spread  to  be 
overlooked,  their  hostility  was  aroused;  and  from  this  time  they 
seem  to  have  acted  in  unison  with  the  Pharisees  against  Him. 

The  peculiarity  of  the  sign  which  His  enemies  now  sought  from 


340  THE   LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD.  [Part   V. 

Him,  was  that  it  should  be  from  heaven,  or  something  visible  in  the 
heavens ;  perhaps  some  change  in  the  sun  or  moon,  or  a  meteor, 
or  fire,  or  thunder  and  lightning.  Denouncing  them  as  hypo- 
crites, who  could  discern  the  face  of  the  sky  but  could  not  dis- 
cern the  signs  of  the  times,  He  refuses  to  give  them  any  other 
sign  than  one  too  late  to  profit  them  —  His  own  resurrection. 

The  departure  from  Capernaum,  or,  as  some  think,  from 
Dahnanutha,  across  the  sea,  seems  to  have  followed  close  upon 
this  temptation  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  That  the  Lord 
was  greatly  grieved  at  this  new  instance  of  their  unbelief,  ap- 
pears from  Mark  viii.  12,  where  it  is  said:  "He  sighed  deeply 
in  His  spirit."  Alexander  also  observes  that  the  expression, 
verse  13,  "'He  left  them,'  suggests  the  idea  of  abandonment, 
letting  them  alone,  leaving  them  to  themselves,  giving  them  up 
to  hopeless  unbelief."  According  to  Matthew,  He  admonished 
His  disciples  to  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and 
Sadducees;  according  to  Mark,  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees 
and  of  Herod.  This  slight  discrepancy  is  generally  explained 
by  saying  that  Herod  was  a  Sadducee.  This  is  in  itself  probable, 
for  none  of  the  Herodian  princes  seem  to  have  imbibed  the 
true  Jewish  spirit;  and  though  fearing  the  Pharisees,  because 
of  their  great  influence  over  the  people,  yet  they  favored  the 
Sadducees,  and  gave  ofiice  so  far  as  possible  to  men  of  that 
party.  But  it  may  be  that  the  Lord  speaks  of  hypocrisy  in 
general  as  leaven,  and  so  the  same  in  whatsoever  person  or 
party  it  appeared. 

If  Bethsaida  were,  as  we  suppose,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Jor- 
dan, its  position  would  correspond  with  all  the  conditions  of  the 
present  narrative.  Although  we  know  from  the  Lord's  own 
words  (Matt.  xi.  21)  that  He  had  wrought  many  mighty  works 
in  Bethsaida,  yet  the  healing  of  the  blind  man  is  the  only  one 
recorded,  except  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  which  took 
place  upon  its  territory.  For  some  reason  not  stated  (Mark 
viii.  23),  the  blind  man  was  healed  without  the  city.  There  are 
many  points  of  resemblance  between  this  miracle  and  that  of  the 
healing  of  the  deaf  man  with  an  impediment  in  his  speech 
(Mark  vii.  32-37).  In  both  the  Lord  is  besought  to  touch  them; 
He  takes  them  aside  from  the  people;  He  uses  spittle;  He  en- 
joins silence. 


Part  v.]     JESUS  AT  THE  FEAST   OP  TABEKNACLES.  341 

llth-18th  October,  782.      A.D.  29. 

Jesus  goes  up  secretly  to  Feast  of  Taberoacles.     During    John  vii.  2-10. 
the  first  clays  of  the  feast  there  is  much  inquiry  among    Joun  vii.  11-13. 
the  people  couceruing  Him,  and  His  probable  appearance 
at  the  feast,  but  no  one  speaks  openly  through  fear  of 
the  Jews.     After  His  arrival  at  Jerusalem  He  goes  into  the    Joun  vii.  14-.S1. 
temple  and  teaches.     His  enemies  wish  to  arrest  Him  but  do 
not,  and  many  people  believe  on  Him.     Upon  a  subsequent 
day  of  the  feast  the  Pharisees  make  an  attempt  to  arrest    John  vii.  32-53. 
Him,  but  it  fails,  and  the  officers  they  had  sent  return,  de- 
claring, "Never  man  spake  like  this  man."     Nicodemus 
makes  an  useless  effort  to  induce  them  to  act  with  equity. 

It  is  at  this  period  tliat  we  put  the  Lord's  journey  to  Jeru- 
salem to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  recorded  by  John  (vii.  2-10). 
By  many  this  journey  and  that  mentioned  by  Luke  (ix.  51-53) 
are  regarded  as  identical.  But  a  careful  comparison  shows  so 
many  points  of  difference  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  believe  them 
the  same.  These  will  Ije  hereafter  examined.  For  the  present  it 
will  be  assumed  that  the  journeys  are  distinct,  and  that  the  one 
mentioned  by  Luke  was  later.  But  if  there  were  two  journeys, 
is  that  to  Tabernacles  to  be  inserted  here?  Did  not  the  journey 
to  Caesarea  Philippi  follow  immediately  upon  the  miracle  at 
Bethsaida?  (Mark  viii.  2'_'-'27;  see  Matt.  xvi.  12-13.)  This  is 
said  by  many.  But  we  leave  this  point  also  for  future  discus- 
sion ;  and  here  assume  that  the  Lord  after  this  miracle  went  to 
Jerusalem  to  the  feast,  and  returning  to  Galilee,  went  to  Caesarea 
Philippi. 

In  what  place  Jesus  met  His  brethren  (John  vii.  3),  and 
whence  He  departed  to  the  feast,  is  not  certain,  but  most  prob- 
ably it  was  Capernaum.'  His  brethren  ai)poar  not  as  wholly  un- 
believers, but  as  those  who,  recognizing  His  woi-ks  as  wonderful, 
do  not  understand  His  course  of  conduct.  Sharing  the  common 
opinions  respecting  the  Messiah,  they  felt  that  if  His  Messianic 
claims  were  well  foimded,  there  could  be  no  general  recognition 
of  them  so  long  as  He  confined  His  labors  to  Galilee  (see  verses 
41  and  52).  In  advising  Him  to  go  and  show  Himself  in  Judaea, 
their  motives  were  friendly  rather  than  evil.  They  knew  that 
Jerusalem  was  the  ecclesiastical  centre,  and  that  if  He  desired  tc 


1  Greswell,  ii.  482;  Caspar!,  168. 


S42  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR   LORD.  [Part  V. 

be  received  by  the  nation  at  large,  He  must  first  find  reception 
there.  His  works  in  GaHlee,  however  great  they  might  be, 
could  avail  little  so  long  as  the  priests  and  scribes  did  not  give 
Him  their  countenance  and  aid.  The  disciples  He  had  already, 
made  were  men  of  no  reputation.  Their  adhesion  gave  Him  no 
strength,  for  they  were  but  Galilsean  fishermen  and  publicans, 
and,  with  few  exceptions,  poor  and  obscure  people.  He  must 
then  stay  no  longer  in  that  remote  province,  but  go  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem, and  there  in  the  temple,  and  before  the  priests  and  rulers,  do 
His  works.'  If  once  recognized  there.  He  would  be  everywhere 
received.  Had  Jesus  been  such  a  Messiah  as  they  supposed  was 
to  come,  their  advice  was  good.  It  is  plain  that  they  did  not  in 
any  true  sense  believe  on  Him,  but  in  a  spirit  of  purely  worldly 
wisdom  attempted  to  guide  Him  in  His  conduct.  Their  advice 
was  in  its  nature  a  temptation  like  that  of  the  devil  (Matthew  iv.  5) ; 
a  temptation  to  reveal  Himself  before  the  time,  and  in  a  pre- 
sumptuous way. 

To  the  counsel  of  His  brethren  Jesus  replies  in  substance, 
that  His  time  is  not  come;  that  they  are  always  sure  of  a 
friendly  reception  from  the  world,  but  Him  it  must  hate,  because 
He  testifies  against  it.  "  Go  ye  up  to  the  feast.  I  do  not  go  up 
to  it,  for  my  time  is  not  yet  come."  Some  think  to  find  a  contra- 
diction here,  since,  saying,  "  I  go  not  up  to  this  feast,"  He  after- 
ward went.^  One  solution  makes  Him  to  have  had  no  intention 
at  this  time  to  go,  but  that  afterward  He  changed  His  purpose  in 
obedience  to  divine  direction,  and  went.  Another  lays  weight 
i;pon  the  use  of  the  present  tense,  "I  go  not,"  which  means  "I 
go  not  now,  or  yet ";  or,  as  given  by  Alford,  "  I  am  not  at  present 
going  up."  Another  lays  some  weight  upon  "this  feast,"  count- 
ing it  to  begin  on  the  10th,  the  day  of  Atonement  (so  Caspari), 
which  it  is  said  He  did  not  in  fact  attend,  except  in  its  last  days. 
Still  another  thus  defines  His  words:  "  I  go  not  up  with  you,  or 
in  public  with  the  company  of  pilgrims,"  or,  "  I  go  not  up  in  such 
way  as  you  think  or  advise."  The  matter  to  one  who  considers 
the  scope  of  Christ's  reply  to  His  brethren,  presents  no  real  dif- 


1  This  advice  seems  to  show  that  the  Lord  had  not  been  in  Jerusalem  since  the 
beginning  of  His  Galilteau  ministry. 

2  For  the  reading  in  the  received  text,  "  I  go  not  up  yet,"  outtu  avaPaivui,  which  is 
retained  in  W.  and  H.,  and  K.  V.,  Tischendorf  has  "  I  go  not  up,"  ou*  avapaivio.  So 
Alford,  Meyer,  Godet. 


Part  v.]  ATTEMPT  TO  ARREST  THE  LORD.  343 

ficulty.  They  liad  said:  "Go  up  to  this  feast  and  manifest  thy- 
self. Show  thyself  to  the  world,  and  work  thy  miracles  in 
Judoea."  He  replied:  "My  time  to  manifest  myself  is  not  yet 
come;  I  go  not  up  to  this  feast  with  such  intent.  At  some  sub- 
sequent feast  I  shall  manifest  myself."  (See  Godet,  in  loco.) 
As  He  had  said,  so  He  acted,  going  up  to  Jerusalem  in  a  secret 
way,  avoiding  all  publicity,  nor  arriving  there  till  the  feast  was 
partiallv  r>ast.  At  the  following  Passover  He  acted  in  substance 
as  .._.K^  orethren  had  advised,  showing  Himself  to  the  world, 
and  entering  the  holy  city  as  a  King,  amid  the  shouts  of  the 
multitude. 

The  Feast  of  Tabernacles  was  preceded  by  the  Fast  of  Atone- 
ment, upon  the  10th  Tisri,  or  the  6th  of  October  of  this  year, 
the  feast  itself  beginning  on  the  15th  Tisri,  or  11th  of  October. 
The  Lord  probably  reached  Jerusalem  on  the  13th  or  14th  of 
October.  That  He  had  reached  the  city  earlier,  and  only  now 
first  showed  Himself  in  the  temple,  is  not  implied  in  the  narra- 
tive.' We  know  not  whether  the  apostles  waited  for  Him,  or 
went  up  at  the  usual  time,  but  the  latter  is  more  probable.  He 
went  "as  it  were  in  secret,"  which  may  imply  not  only  that  He 
went  unattended,  but  went  by  some  unusual  and  obscure  route. 
That  there  was  anything  supernatural  in  His  journey,  or  in  His 
appearance  in  the  temple,  as  some  have  supposed,  does  not  appear 
in  the  narrative. 

Here,  as  elsewhere  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  a  distinction  is  to 
be  noticed,  although  not  always  preserved,  between  the  "  Jews  " 
and  the  "  people."  By  the  former  he  means  the  nation  as  headed 
ap  in  its  rulers,  and  represented  by  them,  and  ever  hostile  to  the 
Lord.  Thus  he  says  (verse  11):  "The  Jews  sought  Him  at  the 
feast,  and  said,  '  Where  is  He  ?  '  "  Again  (verse  13):  "  No  man 
spake  openly  of  Him,  for  fear  of  the  Jews."  By  the  people 
he  means  the  "crowd,"  "multitude,"  ox^oq,  regarded  as  an 
assemblage  of  individuals;  among  whom  there  were  many  dif- 
ferences of  opinion,  some  favorable  and  some  unfavorable  to 
Jesus.  (See  verse  12.)  A  large  portion  of  the  crowd  on  this  oc- 
casion was  composed  of  pilgrims  to  the  feast,  and  these  are  dis- 


1  So  Edersheim;  He  went  np  later  than  His  brethren,  but  still  before  the  feast 
began;  and  at  that  time  visited  Mary  at  Bethany,  but  did  not  enter  the  temple  till  two  or 
three  days  had  pas^t^ed. 


344  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  V. 

tinguished  from  the  citizens  of  Jerusalem  (verse  25).  But  tlaere 
was  no  public  expression  of  opinion  in  His  favor,  all  His  friends 
being  afraid  of  the  hierarchy.  His  sudden  appearance  in  the 
temple  at  so  late  a  period  of  the  feast  surprised  all;  and  the 
power  of  His  speech,  not  the  truths  that  He  uttered,  made  His 
enemies  to  marvel.  It  will  serve  to  the  understanding  of  the 
present  narrative  to  keep  in  mind  that  at  the  time  of  the  healing 
of  the  impotent  man  the  Jewish  rulers  determined,  perhaps 
formally  in  full  Sanhedrin,  to  put  Him  to  death  (John  v.  16-18); 
that  this  determination  was  known  to  some  at  least  of  the 
citizens  of  Jerusalem ;  and  that  Jesus  had  not,  from  that  time  to 
the  present,  entered  Judiea.  He  could  now,  therefore,  refer 
back  to  that  miracle,  and  to  the  purpose  to  kill  Him,  as  to  things 
well  known  to  the  rulers  and  to  Jerusalemites,  although  most 
of  the  multitude,  doubtless  the  feast  pilgrims  (verse  20),  were 
ignorant  of  this  purpose.  Thus  we  readily  see  why  the  citizens 
were  surprised  that  He  should  be  allowed  to  speak  at  all  in  the 
temple. 

It  is  not  plain  when  the  Pharisees  and  chief  priests  (verse 
32)  sent  officers  to  take  Him.  (The  seeking  to  take  Him  —  verse 
30  —  seems  to  have  been  earlier,  and  not  an  official  act.  See  verse 
44.)  It  was  perhaps,  as  said  by  Stier,  upon  the  day  following  His 
appearance  in  the  temple,  and  before  the  last  day  of  the  feast. 
Greswell  supposes  that  for  prudential  reasons  they  deferred  the 
attempt  till  the  last  day.  It  was  plainly  an  act  not  of  individuals, 
but  whether  that  of  the  Sanhedrin,  now  assembled  specially  for 
the  purpose,  is  in  question.  This  is  commonly  said  (so  Meyer, 
Godet),  but  it  is  denied  by  Edersheim  (ii.  155):  "Here  was 
neither  meeting,  nor  decree  of  the  Sanhedrin,  nor,  indeeed,  could 
be."  He  supposes  a  conference  between  the  heads  of  the  priest- 
hood and  the  chief  Temple  officials,  and  that  the  officers  were  of 
the  Temple-guard.  They  were  induced  to  take  this  step  by  the 
great  impression  His  teachings  had  made  upon  the  people.  But, 
if  the  officers  were  sent  before  the  last  day,  they  seem  to  have 
waited  for  a  more  favorable  hour,  perhaps  fearing  to  attempt  an 
arrest,  and  to  have  contented  themselves  with  watching  Him  till 
the  conclusion  of  the  feast.  Upon  the  last  day  some  of  the  mul- 
titude (v.  44)  would  have  taken  Him,  but  the  officers,  who  had 
been  greatly  moved  by  His  words,  made  no  efEort  to  do  so ;  nuicb 


Part  v.]  JESUS  TEACHES   IN  THE  TEMPLE.  345 

to  the  vexation  of  those  who  had  sent  them,  and  to  whom  they 
now  made  their  report. 

The  haughtiness  of  the  priests  and  Pliarisees,  and  their  con- 
tempt for  all  not  of  themselves,  are  strikingly  displayed  in  their 
remarks  upon  the  return  of  the  officers;  and  their  rejection  of 
the  manifestly  just  and  legal  proposition  of  Nicodemus  shows 
that  they  were  bound  by  no  considerations  of  equity.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  others  agreed  with  Nicodemus,  and  that  there  were 
internal  dissensions  in  the  council. 

It  is  disputed  whether  "the  last,  the  great  day  of  the  feast" 
(verse  37)  was  the  seventh  or  eighth.  Most  maintain  the  latter.' 
According  to  the  law  (Numb.  xxix.  35),  upon  the  eighth  day  a 
solemn  assembly  should  be  held  and  special  sacrifices  offered. 
This  day  seems  to  have  become  in  popular  estimation  the  great 
day  of  the  feast.  Lightfoot  (in  loco),  after  stating  the  Jewish 
opinions  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  several  sacrifices,  adds:  "On 
the  other  seven  days  they  thought  supplications  and  sacrifices 
were  offered,  not  so  much  for  themselves  as  for  the  nations  of 
the  world ;  but  the  solemnities  of  the  eighth  day  were  wholly  in 
their  own  behalf.  They  did  not  reckon  the  eighth  day  as 
included  within  the  feast,  but  a  festival  day,  separately  and  by 
itself."^  It  is  questioned  whether  the  drawing  of  water,  to 
which  the  Lord  is  supposed  to  allude  (verses  37,  38),  and  which 
took  place  upon  each  of  the  seven  days,  took  place  also  upon  the 
eighth.^  But  if  it  did  not,  as  Alford  rightly  remarks,  it  would 
not  exclude  a  refei'ence  to  what  had  been  done  on  the  preceding 
days.  Many,  however,  maintain  that  water  was  also  poured  out 
on  the  eighth  day,  and  that  Christ's  words  were  spoken  as  the 
priest  who  bore  it  entered  the  court. 

October,  781.    A.D.  29. 

[The  Lord  spends  the  night  following  at  the  Mount  of    [John  viii.  1-11.] 
Olives,  and  returning  early  next  morning  to  the  temple, 
teaches  the  people.     An  adulteress  is  brought  before  Ilim, 
whom  He  directs  to  go  and  sin  no  more.]    He  answers  the 


1  So  Meyer,  Alford,  Tholuck,  LichteiiBtein,  Godet,  Westcott,  M.  andM.;  contra, 
Greswell,  Edersheim  (ii.  176),  who  mentions  six  points  which  mark  the  octave  as  a  sepa- 
rate feast. 

2  See  Josephns,  Antiq.,  iii.  10.  4. 

3  See  Winer,  ii.  8,  note  2;  Alford  in  loco. 

15* 


346  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  V 

Pharisees  from  the  treasury,  and  continues  to  speali  to 
the  people.     Many  believe  on  Him,  but  others  are  angry,     John  viii.  13-59. 
and  take  up  stones  to  cast  at  Him.    As  He  goes.  He  meets 
and  heals  a  blind  man,  who  had  been  blind  from  birth,     John  ix.  1-12. 
and  it  is  the  Sabbath.     So  soon  as  this  miracle  is  re- 
ported to  the  Pharisees,  they  call  him  and  his  parents,    John  ix.  13-34. 
and  examine  him  and  cast  him  out.     He  afterward  meets 
Jesus,  and  believes  and  worships  Him.     Some  Pharisees    John  ix.  35-38. 
who  are  present  ask  Him  a  question,  to  which  He  replies    John  ix.  39-  x.  18. 
in  the  parable  of  the  Good  Shepherd.     There  is  great  divi-    John  x.  19-21. 
sion  of  sentiment  among  the  Jews  in  regard  to  Him. 

The  exact  order  of  the  events  given  above  is  not  certain. 
The  best  authorities  reject  as  not  genuine  the  account  of  the 
adulterous  woman.'  If  this  be  rejected,  commencing  vii.  53, 
and  extending  to  viii.  12,  it  will  read:  "  Search  and  look,  for  out 
of  Galilee  ariseth  no  prophet.  Then  spake  Jesus  again  unto 
them  "  (R.  V.,  "  Again,  therefore,  Jesus  spake  unto  them"),  and  in 
this  case,  His  words  from  viii.  12-20  were  spoken  in  the  treasury 
upon  the  last  day  of  the  feast,  and  perhaps  also  the  subsequent 
words  to  verse  59.  We  give  the  probable  order.  The  feast  began 
on  the  15th  Tisri,  and  ended  on  the  21st.  The  eighth  day  was  the 
2 2d,  which  was  observed  as  a  Sabbath.  "We  cannot  tell  whether 
Jesus  appeared  in  the  temple  and  taught  (vii.  14)  on  the  17th, 
18th,  or  19th  day.  According  to  Wieseler  (309),  it  was  the 
18th,  which  he  makes  to  have  been  a  Sabbath;  according  to 
Greswell  (ii.  491)  it  was  the  19th.  It  may,  with  equal  proba- 
bility, have  been  the  17th.  Assuming  that  the  last  great  day  of 
the  feast  was  the  2 2d,  an  interval  of  three  or  more  days  must 
have  elapsed  after  His  appearance  in  the  temple.  Upon  the 
first  of  these  days  occurred  what  is  narrated  in  vii.  14-31,  or, 
as  some  prefer,  in  14-27.  The  next  event  mentioned  (verse 
32),  the  sending  of  officers,  was  probably  on  the  next  day,  and 
they  were  directed  to  watch  Him,  and  arrest  Him  when  they 
found  a  good  occasion.  When  the  words  in  verses  33-36  were 
spoken  is  not  said,  but  probably  after  the  officers  began  to  watch 
Him.  There  are  then  two  or  three  days  of  the  feast  during 
which  Jesus  was  present,  of  which  nothing  is  related.  Upon 
the  last  day  He  speaks  of  Himself  as  giving  living  water  (vii. 
37-38).     Whether  His  words  in  viii.  12-20  and  21-59,  omitting 


*  So  Tischendorf,  W.  and  H.,  Meyer,  Alford,  Tholuck,  Trench. 


Part  v.]  HEALING   OF  THE  BLIND   MAN.  34? 

here  the  account  of  the  adulterous  woman  as  not  genuine,  were 
all  spoken  afterward  upon  the  same  day,  or  upon  successive  days, 
it  is  difficult  to  decide.  Some  infer  from  the  mention  of  the 
"treasury"  in  verse  20,  and  the  use  of  "again"  in  verse  21  (see 
verse  12),  that  these  words  were  spoken  after  the  eighth  day,  and 
upon  different  days.'  Some,  on  the  other  hand,  making  the 
healing  of  the  blind  man  (ix.  1-7)  to  have  taken  place  on  the 
last  day  of  the  feast,  which  was  a  Sabbath,  refer  all  His  words 
(ch.  viii.)  to  this  day.  The  former  is  most  probable,  and  from 
viii.  21-59  we  find  but  the  events  of  a  single  day.  Was  the 
blind  man  healed  on  this  day?  So  say  many,  bringing  the 
attempt  to  stone  Him  and  the  miracle  into  immediate  connection.'* 
But  it  is  more  probable  that  some  interval  elapsed.'  It  is  not 
likely  that  Jesus,  when  "  He  hid  Himself  and  went  out  of  the 
temple,"  was  accompanied  by  His  disciples;  yet  they  were  with 
Him  when  He  saw  the  blind  man  (ix.  2).  Nor  would  they  in 
such  a  moment  be  likely  to  ask  speculative  questions  respecting 
the  cause  of  the  man's  blindness.  We  conclude,  then,  that  the 
Sabbath  upon  which  the  blind  man  wa,s  healed  (ix.  14)  was  not 
the  eighth  day  of  the  feast,  but  the  first  week-Sabbath  following. 

The  view  of  Westcott  should  be  mentioned  here.  He  sup- 
poses that  the  Lord's  acts  and  words  from  ix.  1  to  x.  20  were  not 
at  this  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  but  at  the  later  Feast  of  Dedication. 
This  is  based  upon  the  reading  eyevero  tote  rd  evKaivia  —  "  Then 
was  the  Feast  of  Dedication."  But  Tisch.  and  the  revisers  retain 
the  textus  receptus ;  in  K.V. :  "And  it  was  the  Feast  of  the  Dedi- 
cation.    It  was  winter." 

The  effect  of  Christ's  words  (viii.  21-29)  was  such  that 
"  many  believed  on  Him."  It  is  questioned  whether  these  be- 
lievers ai'e  meant  in  verse  33,  and  whe^ther  to  them,  in  common 
with  others,  are  addressed  the  subsequent  words  (34-38).  "  The 
Lord  mingles  them  indiscriminately  in  the  general  mass  of  the 
people,  in  spite  of  the  transient  and  indistinct  impulse  of  faith."  * 
But  it  seems  more  probable  tliat  He  speaks  to  the  Jews  gener- 
erally,  and  does  not  include  them,  for  those  could  not  in  any 
sense  be  said  to  believe  on  Him  to  whom  He  immediately  ad- 


1  So  Meyer.  '  '  Meyer,  Luthardt,  Trench. 

*  See  Alford,  in  loco.  *  Stier;  so  Alford. 


348  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  V. 

dresses  the  reproach:  "Ye  seek  to  kill  me  because  my  word 
hath  no  place  in  you."  ' 

The  attempt  to  stone  Him  (verse  59)  was  the  fruit  of  sudden 
rage.  It  is  denied  by  many,  as  Meyer  and  Alford,  that  the 
Lord's  escape  from  their  violence  involved  anything  super- 
natural. The  language  may  be  construed  either  way;  but.  as 
said  by  Winer, -^  the  supernatural  interpretation  is  to  be  preferred 
as  more  correspondent  with  the  character  of  this  Evangelist. 
Tholuck  does  not  find  tlie  intimation  of  a  miracle  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word,  but  of  a  special  providence. 

The  position  of  the  pool  of  Siloam,  where  the  blind  man 
was  sent  to  wash,  had  been  much  disputed,  but  all  modern 
writers  agree  that  it  lies  at  the  mouth  of  the  valley  of  the  Tyro- 
pceon,  near  the  base  of  Ophel. '  The  waters  of  this  pool  come 
from  the  fountain  of  the  Virgin,  which  lies  on  the  west  side  of 
the  valley  of  Jehosaphat,  through  a  subterranean  passage  cut  in 
the  rock.  It  is  a  current  belief  that  the  water  of  the  fountain 
comes  from  a  living  spring  beneath  the  temple.  Barclay  (52."'!), 
however,  asserts  that  the  subterranean  canal  derived  its  former 
supply  of  water,  not  from  Moriah  but  from  Zion."  It  is  still  in 
dispute  whether  any  of  the  water  of  Siloam  comes  from  the 
temple.* 

The  effect  of  this  miracle  was  to  make  a  division  among  the 
Pharisees.  Some  said  that  it  was  a  violation  of  the  law,  being 
done  on  the  Sabbath;  others,  that  no  sinner  could  do  such 
miracles.  At  first  there  was  a  general  disposition  to  doubt  the 
reality  of  the  miracle,  perhaps,  as  said  by  "Weiss,  to  regard  it  as 
a  concerted  deception.  As  this,  however,  was  established  by  the 
testimony  of  his  parents,  they  reviled  the  man  and  cast  him  out. 
This  may  refer  to  his  being  thrust  from  the  room  where  they 


»  In  the  Greek  text,  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.,  5',)  ends  with  iepov.  R.  V.  "  went  out 
of  the  temple."  Edersheim  thinks  He  hid  Himself  foi-  a  moment  in  one  of  the  many 
chambers  of  the  temple,  and  then  passed  out. 

2  Gram.,  264;  see  Benc;el,  in  loco. 

3  Robinson,  i.  333;  Raumer,  296;  Lewis,  119. 

*  See  Robinson,  i.  343;  Porter,  i.  138. 

*  For  the  latest  examination  of  this  pool,  see  Qt.  St.,  January,  1891, 13,  and  the 
references  there  to  earlier  statements.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  healing  of  the  impotent 
man  was  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda. 


Part  v.]     RETURN   AFTER   TABERNACLES   TO   GALILEE,     oid 

were  assembled,'  or  to  the  sentence  of  excommunication."  Some 
suppose  that  He  was  now  before  the  great  Sanhedrin;  others, 
that  He  was  before  the  lesser;  others  still,  that  he  was  not  before 
any  judicial  tribunal,  but  before  some  of  the  chief  Pharisees  in- 
formally assembled.  Prom  the  manner  of  the  examination  and 
their  action  at  its  close,  it  is  most  probable  that  they  were  clothed 
with  some  ecclesiastical  authority. 

How  soon  after  the  blind  man  was  cast  out  the  Lord  met 
him,  is  not  stated.  Not  improbably,  He  may  have  met  Him  the 
same  day  toward  evening.  It  is  in  question  what  is  the  right 
reading  of  the  Lord's  words  in  verse  35:  "Dost  thou  believe  on 
the  Son  of  God "?  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.,  read,  "  Son  of  Man." 
(In  R.  v.,  "Son  of  God"  is  retained;  so  Edersheim,  who  relies 
on  "  the  internal  evidence.")  The  words  in  verse  39  seem  to 
have  been  addressed  to  the  disciples,  and  probably  after  His 
meeting  with  the  blind  man,  and  the  words  to  the  Pharisees 
immediately  followed.  The  effect  of  these  words  was  again  to 
work  a  division  of  opinion  respecting  Him,  some  saying  that 
He  had  a  devil,  others,  that  neither  His  words  nor  works 
were  those  of  a  man  who  had  a  devil. 

From  Jerusalem,  as  we  here  assume,  the  Lord  returns  to 
Galilee.  Of  His  return  the  Evangelist  gives  us  no  information. 
Many  suppose  that  He  did  not  return  to  Galilee  at  this  time, 
but  spent  the  interval  between  the  feasts  of  Tabernacles  and  of 
Dedication  at  Jerusalem  or  in  its  vicinity.^  It  will  be  shown 
that  this  journey  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  is  not  identical 
with  that  in  Luke  ix.  51,  and  that  the  latter  was  subsequent. 
A  full  discussion  of  all  these  points  is  reserved  to  the  part  fol- 
lowing. 

If  we  compare  the  discourse  of  the  Lord  when  at  the  unnamed 
feast  (John  v.  1)  with  those  at  this  later  feast  of  Tabernacles,  and 
their  attendant  circumstances,  we  find  many  important  differences, 
showing  that  a  considerable  interval  of  time  had  elapsed.  In  the  first, 
though  there  is  mention  of  a  multitude  as  present  (verse  13),  yet  they 
apparently  take  no  part  in  the  proceedings   against  Him,    and   are 


1  Meyer,  Lichtenstein. 

*  Alford.     Trench   embraces  both.     As  to  the  effect  of  excommunication,    see 
Eders.,  ii.  183. 

3  So  Meyer,  Alford,  Tholuck,  Robinson,  Tischendorf. 


350  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  V. 

either  ignorant  op  uninterested.  There  is  evidently  no  popular  ex- 
citement about  Him,  and  nothing  is  said  of  any  Messianic  claims. 
All  this  corresponds  to  the  fact  that  up  to  this  time  He  had  been 
laboring  in  Judaja,  and  with  special  reference  to  the  rulers  at  Jerusa- 
lem, and  to  them  His  discourse  was  addressed.  The  public  at  large 
knew  little  of  Him.  But  at  the  last  feast  the  multitude  is  plainly 
much  excited  in  regard  to  Him.  The  question  is  earnestly  asked 
whether  He  will  come  to  the  feast,  and  they  dispute  as  to  His  charac- 
ter and  work  and  His  Messianic  claims.  All  this  shows  that  He  had 
at  this  time  become  well  known  throughout  the  land,  for  these  multi- 
tudes were  doubtless  the  feast-pilgrims  coming  from  all  parts  of  it ; 
and  that  there  was  a  very  deep  interest  in  His  personal  movements. 

Comparing  the  conduct  of  the  Jews  toward  the  Lord  at  the  two 
feasts,  we  see  that  their  hostility  had  greatly  increased.  At  the  first, 
the  charge  brought  against  Him  was  that  He  had  broken  the  Sabbath 
by  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man ;  now,  the  charge  against  Him, 
one  made  by  tlie  Pharisees  in  Galilee,  and  become  current  among  the 
multitudes,  is  that  He  has  a  devil.  His  enemies  had  taken  the  posi- 
tion that  all  His  words  and  works  were  those  of  a  man  possessed. 
This  permitted  no  compromise,  no  middle  ground  was  possible.  He 
was  not,  thiey  said,  sent  of  God,  a  teacher,  a  prophet,  much  less  the 
Christ,  but  sent  of  the  devil;  and  hence  the  greater  severity  of  the 
Lord's  words,  and  the  clear,  and  strong,  and  oft-repeated  affirma- 
tions of  His  divine  mission  and  of  His  relations  to  the  Father. 

It  is  important  to  note  what  knowledge  the  people  at  large  had  of 
His  Messianic  character,  at  this  late  stage  of  His  ministry,  and  the 
division  of  sentiment  respecting  Him  which  His  words  at  this 
feast  made.  That  which  had  kept  them  so  long  in  doubt,  was  His 
refusal  to  take  any  such  step  to  assert  His  royal  claims  as  they  ex- 
pected the  Messiah  would  do  when  He  came.  His  miracles  made  a 
deep  impression,  and  they  asked:  "  When  the  Christ  shall  come,  will 
He  do  more  signs  than  those  which  this  man  hath  done?  "  But  this 
inactivity  led  them  to  believe  that  He  Himself  was  not  the  Messiah, 
but  His  forerunner.  In  this  state  of  uncertainty  it  was  natural  that 
His  words  should  have  caused  frequent  and  rapid  transition  of  feel- 
ing. Now  many  believed  on  Him,  now  they  argued  against  Him, 
now  they  took  up  stones  to  stone  Him.  The  Pharisees,  seeing  these 
alternations  of  popular  feeling,  were  alarmed,  and  asked  anxiously: 
"  Have  any  of  the  rulers  or  of  the  Pharisees  believed  on  Him  ? "  Even 
among  these  was  at  last  a  division  (x.  20-1);  for  while  many  said 
(R.  v.):  "He  hath  a  devil,  and  is  mad;  why  hear  ye  Him?  "  others 
said,  ' '  These  are  not  the  sayings  of  one  possessed  with  a  devil.  Can 
a  devil  open  the  eyes  of  the  blind?  " 


Part  v.]      JESUS  IN  REGION  OP  C^SAREA  PHILIPPI.       351 

It  was  apparent  to  the  Lord  that  the  hatred  of  the  rulers  at  Jerusa- 
lem had  only  intensified  with  time.  All  that  was  remained  was  to 
return  to  Galilee  and  prepare  His  disciples  for  that  hour  which  was 
rapidly  approaching,  when  His  words  would  be  fulfilled:  "Yet  a 
little  while  I  am  with  you,  and  I  go  unto  Him  that  sent  me." 


Autumn,  October  to  November,  782.  A.D.  29. 

Returnin<;  to  Galilee,  Jesus  goes  with  His  disciples  to    Mark  viii.  27-33. 
the  region  of  Caesarea  Philippi.     While  upou  the  way,  He    Matt.  xvi.  13-23. 
asked  them,  "  Whom  do  men  say  that  I  am  ?  "    He  then    Luke  ix.  18-22. 
asks  them  their  opiniou  of  Him,  and  Peter  replies  that  He 
is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.     This  truth  He 
commands  them  to  tell  to  no  one;  and  now  begins  to 
teach  them  respecting  His  approaching  rejection  by  the 
Jews,   His  death,  and   resurrection    after  three    days. 
Peter  would  rebuke  Him  for  these  words,  but  is  himself 
rebuked.     Jesus  afterward  addresses  the  disciples  and    Mark  viii.  B4rS8. 
people,  and  teaches  them  what  is  involved  in  following    Matt.  xvi.  24^28. 
Him,  and  speaks  of  the  rewards  He   will  give  to  all    Luke  ix.  23-27. 
when  He  shall  come  again  in  the  glory  of  His  Father. 
He  adds,  that  some  standing  before  Him  should  see  Him    Mark  ix.  1-10. 
come  in  the  glory  of  His  kingdom.     Six  days  after  He    Matt.  xvii.  1-9. 
goes  to  a  high  mountain,  taking  with  Him  Peter,  James,     Luke  ix.  28-36. 
and  John,  and  is  transfigured  before  them. 

To  what  place  in  Galilee  the  Lord  returned  after  the  feast 
in  Jerusalem  we  do  not  know,  but  probably  He  went  to  Capernaum, 
and  from  thence  to  Caesarea  Philippi.  (The  point  of  departure, 
whether  from  Capernaum  or  Bethsaida,  will  be  later  considered.) 

It  is  said  by  Mark  (viii.  27):  "Jesus  went  out  and  His 
disciples  into  the  towns  —  Kojfia^  —  of  Caesarea  Philippi."  As 
His  chief  purpose  in  this  journey  was  that  He  might  instruct 
His  disciples,  it  is  not  probable  that  He  taught  in  these  towns,  but 
passed  quietly  through  them,  avoiding  publicity  as  far  as  possible. 
Still  in  this  circuit,  as  m  that  through  Tyre  and  Sidon,  "  He 
could  not  be  hid."  It  is  said  by  Alexander  that  "  the  multitude 
was  never  far  off,  even  when  the  Lord  was  most  retired."  It 
is  therefore  not  in  contradiction  to  this  that  the  Lord  is  said  by 
Mark  (viii.  34),  at  a  little  later  period  during  this  circuit,  "  to  have 
called  the  people  unto  Him,  with  His  disciples  also,"  His 
teaching  respecting  the  self-denial  needed  in  a  disciple,  having 
an  equal   application  to   both.      That  "  He   called   the   people 


352  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  V. 

unto  Him  "  marks  this  as  a  special  act  (see  vii.  14);  and  it  does 
not  follow  from  this,  as  Ellicott  says,  that  His  object  in  His 
journey  was  public  preaching  and  teaching. 

We  do  not  know  where  the  Lord  was  when  He  asked  the 
disciples,  "  Whom  do  men  say  that  I  am  ?  "  Matthew  says  (xvi. 
13):  "When  Jesus  came  unto  the  coasts  —  parts  —  of  Csesarea 
Philippi,  He  asked,"  etc.  Mark  (viii.  27):  "And  by  the  way. 
He  asked,"  etc.  Luke  (ix.  IS),  who  makes  no  mention  of  this 
circuit,  and  gives  no  indication  of  the  place,  says:  "And  it 
came  to  pass,  as  He  was  alone  praying.  His  disciples  were  with 
Him,  and  He  asked  them." '  Whether  the  Lord  actually 
entered  the  city  of  Csesarea  Philippi,  we  cannot  tell,  but  the  prob- 
ability is  that  He  did  not. 

The  apostles,  in  their  answ  to  the  L  i's  question,  "  Whom 
do  men  say  that  I  am  ?  "  give  the  opinions  then  most  current 
among  the  people  generally  in  Galilee.  It  is  not  certain 
whether  He  was  through  ignorance  confounded  with  John  the 
Baptist,  as  if  the  latter  were  still  living,  or  was  thought  to  be 
the  Baptist  raised  from  the  dead.  The  latter  is  most  probable, 
and  perhaps  reference  may  be  made  to  the  opinion  of  Herod 
and  his  party.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Lord  did  not 
begin  His  Galilsean  ministry  till  the  Baptist  was  imprisoned,  and 
so  removed  from  public  observation.  We  do  not  know  that  he 
carried  on  any  baptismal  work  in  Galilee,  and  it  is  not  strange, 
therefore,  that  there  should  have  been  some  confusion  in  the  pop- 
ular mind  respecting  him.  Those  who  knew  that  Jesus  and  John 
had  carried  on  contemporaneous  labors  in  Judaea,  could  not  pos- 
sibly have  identified  them  as  one;  but  many  in  Galilee  were 
doubtless  ignorant  of  this.  How  intimate  was  the  connection 
in  the  Jewish  mind  between  the  resurrection  and  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  and  the  advent  of  Christ,  is  shown  by  Lightfoot  (on 
John  i.  25):  "The  Jews  believed  that  at  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah  the  prophets  were  to  rise  again.  The  nearer  still  the 
'  kingdom  of  heaven  '  came,  by  so  much  the  more  did  they 
dream  of  the  resurrection  of  the  prophets." 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  no  important  part  of  the  people  seem  to 


'  This  mention  of  His  being  alone  (see  Mark   iv.  10)  shows  that  none  but  the 
disciples  were  with  Him. 


Part    v.]  THE  CONFESSION   OF  PETER.  353 

have  regarded  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  or  else  it  would  have  been 
mentioned  by  the  apostles.  It  is  apparent  that  He  was  regarded 
rather  as  a  forerunner  of  the  Messiah  than  as  the  Messiah  Him- 
self, though  public  sentiment  may  have  changed  from  time  to 
time  in  regard  to  His  Messianic  claims.'  On  the  one  hand,  He 
had  been  pointed  out  as  the  Messiah  by  John,  and  His  mighty 
works  manifestly  proved  His  divine  commission;  yet,  on  the 
other  hand,  He  did  not  openly  avow  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah, 
and  His  whole  course  of  conduct  was  in  striking  contrast  to  their 
Messianic  expectations.  "While  a  few  here  and  there  said,  "  He 
is  the  Christ,"  the  general  voice  began  to  be  that  He  was  but  a 
forerunner.  Weiss  (ii.  52)  thinks  that  the  answer  shows  only 
that  the  people  no  longer  considered  Him  as  the  Messiah,  not 
that  many  had  not  formerly  "'nie  so.  After  the  feeding  of 
the  five  thousand,  there  was  a  desire  to  make  Him  king;  it 
was  the  natural  effect  of  so  stupendous  a  miracle  upon  the  rest- 
less Jewish  mind,  eager  to  cast  oft'  the  Roman  and  Idumsean  yoke; 
but  the  next  day  many  of  His  disciples,  and  perhaps  those  most 
zealous  to  make  Him  a  king,  repelled  by  His  words,  "went 
back  and  walked  no  more  with  Him."  It  is  said  by  Lindsay: 
"The  people  had  fancied  that  He  was  the  Messiah;  they  did  so 
no  longer."  This  confession  of  Peter,  which  was  that  of  all  the 
apostles,  was  therefore  a  great  turning  point  m  their  history. 
To  others  He  was  only  the  Baptist,  or  Elias,  or  one  of  the  proph- 
ets; to  them  "He  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God." 

We  are  not  concerned  in  these  discussions  to  enter  upon 
points  of  interpretation,  except  so  far  as  they  bear  directly  upon 
our  historical  understanding  of  the  Gospels.  That  there  was 
during  the  Lord's  ministry  a  development  in  the  minds  of  His 
disciples,  and  especially  of  the  Twelve,  of  their  conceptions  as  to 
His  Person,  is  undoubted;  and  we  may  briefly  outline  the 
progress  of  this  development  as  it  is  made  known  m  their 
successive  confessions. 

The  first  confession  made  was  that  of  Andrew  at  Bethabara 
(John  i.  41)  to  his  brother  Peter  :  ''^  We  have  found  the  Mes- 
siah." The  second  was  that  of  Philip  (verse  45)  :  "We  have 
found  Him  of  whom  Moses  in  the  law  and  the  prophets  did 


1  Lange,  on  Matt.  xvi.  14. 


354  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  V. 

write,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  Son  of  Joseph."  The  third  was  that 
of  Nathanael  (verse  49):  "  Rabbi,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God;  thou 
art  the  King  of  IsraeL"  The  comparison  of  these  several  con- 
fessions shows  that  in  their  minds  the  terms  "  Messiah  "  and  "  Son 
of  God  "  were  interchangeable,  and  that  both  were  compatible  with 
the  fact  that  He  so  designated  should  be  born  of  a  human  father, 
and  at  Nazareth  in  Galilee.  A  later  confession  was  that  of  those 
in  the  ship  when  the  Lord  walked  upon  the  water  (Matt.  xiv. 
33):  "Of  a  truth  thou  art  the  Son  of  God."  After  the  dis- 
course m  Capernaum  (John  vi.  69)  Peter  made  the  confession: 
"  We  believe,  and  are  sure  that  thou  art  that  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  living  God."  (The  best  authorities  sul)stitute  for  this  read- 
ing that  of  the  R.  V.,  "  that  thou  art  the  Holy  One  of  God." ') 

The  last  of  these  confessions  —  that  now  before  us,  made  in 
answer  to  the  Lord's  question  —  is  briefest  in  Mark:  "Thou  art 
the  Christ";  in  Luke:  "The  Christ  of  God";  in  Matthew 
more  full:   "Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God." 

As  we  must  believe  that  the  imperfect  conceptions  of  the 
disciples  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Person  were  much  enlarged 
through  His  teachings,  we  ask  as  to  the  new  elements  now  made 
known.  They  were  two:  first,  that  of  His  pre-existence ;  and  as 
involved  in  this.  His  coming  down  from  heaven.  To  Nicode- 
mus  He  said:  "No  man  hath  ascended  up  to  lieaven,  but  He 
that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man  which  is  in 
heaven."  So  to  the  disciples  at  Capernaum  He  said  (John  vi.  38): 
"For  I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will  Imt 
the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me."  Again  (viii.  42),  "I  proceeded 
forth  and  cam.e  from  God."  And  even  more  distinctly  (John 
viii.  58):  "Before  Abraham  was,  1  am."  (See  also  vi.  33, 
51,  62.)  If  pre-existence  had  already  entered  as  an  element  into 
the  Jewish  conception  of  the  Messiah,  it  was  now  confirmed; 
l)ut  probably  it  had  never  been  held  unless  in  a  very  vague  way. 

The  second  element  was  that  of  Sonship  as  involving  unity 
of  essence.  The  Son's  relation  to  the  Father  was  not  that  of  a 
man  sent  and  endowed  by  the  Father  to  do  His  work,  His 
servant;  but  of  one  equal  to  the  Father,  yet  as  Son  subordinate 
to  Him.     Of  this  Sonship  He  had  spoken  to  the  Jews  (John  v 


1  So  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.,  Meyer,  Gardiner,  Kiddle,  and  many;  contra,  McClelluu. 


Fart  v.]  THE   TRANSFIGURATION.  355 

H  ff.),  and  they  had  understood  Him  as  "making  Himself 
equal  with  God."  His  words  spoken  at  the  Feast  of  Dedication 
(x.  30):  "I  and  my  Father  are  One,"  were  understood  in  the 
same  sense:   "Thou,  being  a  man,  makest  thyself  God." 

These  declarations  of  the  Lord  respecting  His  Person 
publicly  made,  must  not  only  have  been  known,  but  also  believed 
by  His  disciples,  even  if  He  had  not  Himself  taught  them  in 
private  more  fully  and  plainly.  We  must,  therefore,  believe 
that  in  this  confession  of  Peter  was  embraced  the  fact  of  the 
Incarnation,  though  douljtless  in  a  very  undefined  way,  for  it 
could  not  have  been  rightly  understood  till  after  His  death  and 
resurrection  and  ascension.  The  mystery  of  His  Person  —  "  the 
Word  made  flesh  "  —  was  something  not  to  be  known  through 
the  senses,  or  through  any  exercise  of  the  understanding.  Nor 
could  it  be  proved  by  any  miracles,  even  the  most  stupendous. 
If  known,  it  must  be  through  the  revelation  of  God. 

This  truth,  so  far  surpassing  all  the  common  Jewish  concep- 
tions of  the  Messiah,  of  the  united  Divinity  and  humanity  of 
the  Lord,  being  known  and  confessed  by  the  Twelve,  Jesus  could 
begin  to  open  to  them  other  truths  till  this  time  concealed. 
Now  He  could  teach  them  that  His  first  work  was  to  suffer; 
that  He  must  be  rejected  by  the  Jews  and  be  put  to  death;  that 
He  must  rise  from  the  dead;  and  would  afterward  establish  His 
kingdom.  These  truths,  so  new  and  strange  to  the  disciples,  so 
foreign  to  all  their  modes  of  thinking,  they  could  not  for  a  long 
time  comprehend.  The  very  fact  of  the  Divinity  of  Jesus,  even  as 
now  imperfectly  understood  by  them,  made  it  still  more  incompre- 
hensible how  He  could  suffer  and  die;  nor  could  the  plainest 
words  of  the  Lord  make  it  intelligible.  How  repugnant  to  their 
feelings  was  the  announcement  of  His  sufferings  is  graphically 
shown  in  the  language  of  the  impetuous  Peter:  "  Be  it  far  from 
thee,  Lord;  this  shall  not  be  unto  thee"  —  language  which 
brought  upon  him  the  severest  rebuke. 

From  this  time  the  teaching  of  Jesus  to  His  disciples,  and 
also  to  the  people  at  large  (see  Mark  viii.  34;  Luke  ix.  23) 
assumed  a  new  character.  Gradually,  as  the  Twelve  were  able 
to  bear  it,  He  showed  them  how  the  great  purpose  of  God 
in  the  Messiah  must  be  effected  through  His  death,  and  how 


356  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  V. 

His  sufferings  had  been  foretold  by  the  prophets.  So  far  from 
now  estabhshing  any  earthly  kingdom  in  which  they  should 
have  distinguished  places,  He  must  be  put  to  a  most  ignominious 
death,  and  all  who  received  Him  as  the  Messiah  would  do  it  at 
the  peril  of  their  lives.  Yet,  as  a  counterpoise  to  the  gloomy 
picture,  He  speaks  of  an  hour  when  He  would  come  again,  and 
then  every  disciple  should  have  His  reward.  (What  the  disciples 
understood  by  His  coming  again,  whether  He  was  to  be  hidden 
from  them  for  a  time  and  then  reappear  as  King;  or  that  He 
would  suddenly  manifest  Himself  as  Kmg,  will  be  later  con. 
sidered.)  Thus  He  confirmed  to  them  the  great  fact  that  He  was 
to  establish  a  kingdom  in  power  and  glory.  To  prevent  the 
disciples  from  seizing  upon  this  fact,  and  indulging  in  dreams  of 
a  reign  corresponding  to  that  of  earthly  kings,  the  Lord  was 
pleased  to  show  certain  of  the  apostles,  by  a  momentary  trans- 
figuration of  His  body,  the  supernatural  character  of  His  king- 
dom, and  into  what  new  and  higher  conditions  of  being  both 
He  and  they  must  be  brought  ere  it  could  come.  The  promise 
that  some  then  standing  before  Him  should  not  taste  death  till 
they  had  seen  "the  Son  of  man  coming  in  His  kingdom"  (Matt 
xvi.  28),  or  had  seen  "  the  kingdom  of  God  come  with  power ' 
Mark  ix.  1),  was  fulfilled  when,  after  six  days.  He  took  Peter. 
James,  and  John  into  a  high  mountain  apart,-  and  was  trans 
figured  before  them.  Trench  (Studies  in  the  Gospels,  188)  re 
marks  that  "nearly  all  the  early  expositors,  the  fathers  and 
the  mediaeval  interpreters  find  in  the  glory  of  the  Transfigura- 
tion the  fulfillment  of  the  promise."  These  apostles  now  saw 
Him  as  He  should  appear  when,  risen  from  the  dead  and 
glorified,  He  should  come  again  from  heaven  to  take  His  great 
power  and  to  reign.  They  saw  in  the  ineffable  glory  of  His 
Person  and  m  the  brightness  around  them,  a  foreshadowihg  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  as  it  should  come  with  power,  and  were  for  a 
moment  "  eye-witnesses  of  His  majesty"  (2  Peter  i.  16).  Many 
errors  still  remained  to  be  removed  from  their  minds,  especially 
respecting  the  time  of  its  establishment  (Acts  i.  6),  but  the  great 
fact  of  its  supernatural  character  they  could  not  mistake. 
Henceforth  the  phrase  "kingdom  of  God  "  had  to  these  apostles 
a  significance  which  it  probably  had  not  had  to  any  of  the  prophets, 
and  certainly  had  not  to  any  of  the  Rabbis  or  priests. 


Part  v.]  MOUNT  OF   TRANSFIGURATION.  35? 

The  three  apostles  were  commanded  to  tell  no  one  of  the 
vision  till  Jesus  had  risen  from  the  dead.  It  therefore  remained 
for  a  considerable  period  unknown  to  the  other  apostles  and 
disciples.  It  was  natural  that  they  should  question  one  with 
another,  as  they  descended  the  mount,  what  the  rising  from  the 
dead  should  mean  (Mark  ix.  10).  They  had  just  seen  the  Lord 
transfigured.  He  had  not  died,  yet  had  His  body  been  invested 
with  heavenly  glory.  It  was  not  then  necessary  to  die  and  to  rise 
again  in  order  to  be  glorified.  What,  then,  should  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  which  He  had  spoken  mean  ?  Not  a  literal  death 
and  resurrection,  but  a  spiritual  death  —  some  act  of  suffering 
or  self-sacrifice,  upon  which  supernatural  glory  would  follow. 
And  thus  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  as  a  preliminary  to 
the  kingdom,  became  still  more  incomprehensible. 

The  statements  of  the  Evangelists  do  not  enable  us  to  decide 
where  the  Transfiguration  took  place.  Matthew  and  Mark  speak 
of  it  as  "  a  high  mountain  ";  Luke,  as  "the  mountain,"  to  opog. 
A  tradition,  dating  back  to  the  fourth  century,  gives  Tabor  in 
Galilee  as  the  site.  This  is  a  very  conspicuous  mount  rising 
oi>t  of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  cone-shaped,  about  1,400  above  the 
plain  or  1,900  above  the  sea,  its  slopes  wooded,  and  only  a  few 
miles  from  Nazareth.  All  travellers  speak  of  it  as  in  itself  a 
beautiful  object,  and  presenting  a  wide  view  from  the  summit. 
So  generally  received  for  many  centuries  was  this  tradition, 
that  Lightfoot  (Mark  ix.  2)  says:  "  I  know  it  will  be  laughed  at 
if  I  should  doubt  whether  Christ  was  transfigured  on  Mount 
Tabor,  for  who  ever  doubted  of  this  thing? " '  According  to 
Robinson  (ii.  358)  the  first  notice  of  Tabor  as  the  place  of  the 
Transfiguration  is  as  a  passing  remark  by  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
and  afterward  by  Jerome.  Before  the  close  of  the  sixth  century 
three  churches  were  builded  there,  and  afterward  a  monastery 
was  founded.  Arculf,  A.  D.  700,^  says:  "At  the  top  is  a 
pleasant  and  extensive  meadow  surrounded  by  a  thick  wood, 
and  in  the  middle  of  the  meadow  a  great  monastery  with  nu- 
merous cells  of  monks.  There  are  also  three  handsome  churches, 
according  to  the  number  of   tal)ernacles    described  by  Peter." 


1  The  feast  of  the  Transfiguration  is  called  by   the  Greeks  the  "  Tabor  feast ' 
TO  0a)3iop(or. 

2  Early  Travels,  9. 


358  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  V. 

Robinson  and  Stanley  think  it  conclusive  against  this  tradition, 
that  at  the  time  of  the  Transfiguration  "  the  summit  of  Tabor  was 
occupied  by  a  fortified  city."  Thomson,  however  (ii.  139),  does 
not  regard  this  as  presenting  any  difficulty.  "  There  are  many  se- 
cluded or  densely-wooded  terraces  on  the  north  and  northeast  sides, 
admirably  adapted  to  the  scenes  of  the  Transfiguration.  After 
all  that  the  critics  have  advanced  against  the  current  tradition, 
I  am  not  fully  convinced."  Admitting  that  much  maybe  said  in 
favor  of  Mount  Tabor  as  "  the  high  mountain  "  of  the  Evangelists, 
still  their  narra'-ives  lead  us  to  place  this  event  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Caesarea  Philippi  rather  than  on  the  west  of  the  lake.  "The 
Evangelists,"  says  Lightfoot,  "intimate  no  change  from  place  to 
place."  The  expression  of  Mark  (ix.  30),  that  "  departing  thence 
He  passed  through  Galilee,"  would  imply  that  He  was  not 
then  in  Galilee.  We  are  therefore  made  to  look  for  some 
mountain  in  the  vicinity  of  Csesarea,  and  Mount  Hermon  at  once 
rises  before  us.'  "  Standing  amid  the  ruins  of  Csesarea  we  do 
not  need  to  ask  what  that  '  high  mountain  '  is.  The  lofty  ridge 
of  Hermon  rises  over  us,  and  probably  on  one  or  other  of  those 
wooded  peaks  above  us  that  wondrous  event  took  place.  "^ 

The  difference  in  the  computation  of  Matthew  and  Mark  on 
one  side,  who  say,  "  After  six  days  He  taketh  Peter,  James,  and 
John  into  a  high  mountain  apart,"  and  Luke,  who  says,  "About 
an  eight  days  after  these  sayings.  He  took,"  etc.,  is  easily  recon- 
ciled if  we  suppose  that  the  latter  included,  while  the  former 
excluded,  both  the  day  on  which  the  words  were  spoken  and 
the  day  of  the  Transfiguration.  Some,  as  Meyer,  prefer  to  take 
Luke's  phrase  "about  an  eight  days"  as  indefinite,  but  this  is 
contrary  to  the  use  of  diael,  with  numerals  by  this  Evangelist. 
The  six  days,  according  to  Lange,  are  probably  to  be  counted 
from  the  day  of  Peter's  confession.  Others,  as  Lightfoot, 
count  from  the  day  the  words  of  Matt.  xvi.  28  were  spoken. 
Not  improbably  the  days,  were  identical.  It  is  not  certain 
at  what  period  of  the  day  the  Transfiguration  took  place, 
but  most  probably  during  the  night,  or  at  the  early  -  dawn. 
(Greswell,  ii.  368.)     Darkness  was  not  indeed,  as  some  have  si;p- 


1  Lightfoot,  Reland. 

-  Porter,  ii.  447;  so  Stanley,  Lichtenstein,  Ritter,  Eders.    Godet;  Keil  and  Weiss 
uncertain. 


Part  v.]  JOHN   THE   BAPTIST   AND   ELIJAH.  359 

posed,  necessary  that  the  glory  of  the  Lord's  Person  might  Ije 
plainly  visible,  for  when  He  appeared  to  Paul  (Acts  xxvi.  13)  it 
was  midday,  yet  the  light  that  shone  around  Him  was  brighter 
than  the  sun.  Nor  does  the  fact  that  the  apostles  slept,  show 
that  it  was  night,  for  their  sleep  seems  to  have  been  not  so.  much 
natural  sleep,  the  result  of  fatigue,  as  stupefaction  caused  by  the 
marvellous  apparition  (Rev.  i.  17).  Nor  does  the  fact  that  He 
was  at  that  time  engaged  in  prayer  (Luke  ix.  29)  determine  it. 
But  as  He  did  not  descend  from  the  mount  till  the  day  follow- 
ing, it  is  not  probable  that  He  ascended  upon  one  day,  was 
transfigured,  remained  after  this  during  the  night,  and  the  next 
day  returned  to  the  disciples.  It  is  most  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  the  Lord  went  upon  the  mount  at  even,  that  He  was  trans- 
figured at  the  early  dawn,  and  soon  after  descended. 

The  feast  of  the  Transfiguration  was  not  one  of  the  very  early 
feasts,  though  observed  in  the  East  as  early  as  the  6th  century ;  its 
geuei-al  observance  in  the  West  was  due  to  a  bull  of  Pope  Calixtus  in 
1457.  It  was  held  on  the  6th  August.  This  time  was  selected,  not 
as  the  date  of  the  event,  but  for  symbolical  reasons.  The  Transfigur- 
ation showing  forth  the  new  life,  the  Eucharist  on  that  day,  it  was 
said,  ought  to  be  celebrated  with  new  wine,  and  hence  the  feast  was 
nut  as  early  as  the  grapes  were  ripe.  So  early  a  period  is  inconsist- 
ent with  the  arrangements  of  most  harmonists.  (See  Binterim,  Denk., 
v.  1,  414  if.) 

Autumn,  782.    A.  D.  29. 

Descending  from  the  mount,  Jesus  explains,  in  answer  Matt.  xvii.  10-13. 

to  a  question  from  the  Apostles,  how  Elias  must  be  the  Mark  ix.  11-13. 
forerunner  of  the  Messiah.     At  the  foot  of  the  mountain, 

they  meet  the  other  Apostles  surrounded  by  a  multitude,  Matt.  xvii.  14^21. 

among  whom  are  scribes    questioning  with  them.     The  Mark  ix.  14-29. 

Lord  heals  a  lunatic  child,  whom  the  Apostles  have  not  Luke  ix.  37-42. 
been  able  to  heal. 

That  Elijan  must  personally  precede  the  Messiah,  was  one  of 
the  firmest  and  most  undoubted  convictions  of  the  Jews ;  and  the 
fact  that  the  Baptist  denied  himself  to  be  Elijah,  was  a  circum- 
stance that  went  far  to  discredit  his  mission.  If  he  was  not 
Elijah,  then  Jesus  could  not  be  the  Christ.  If  he  was  a  prophet, 
and  so  all  the  people  regarded  him,  it  by  no  means  followed  that 
the  Messiah  must  immediately  folio  ,v  him,   for  there  might  be 


3o0  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  V 

many  prophets  who  could  act  as  forerunners,  and  yet  EHjah 
alone  should  prepare  His  way.  As  we  have  seen,  most  of  the 
people  seem  to  have  regarded  Jesus  Himself  only  as  one  of  the 
prophetic  forerunners  of  the  Messiah.  Educated  in  the  current 
belief  respecting  the  office  of  Elijah,  the  three  apostles  could 
not  reconcile  it  with  his  appearance  upon  the  mount.  The  Lord 
clears  up  this  great  difficulty  by  explaining  to  them  the  truth,  so 
strange,  that  there  should  be  two  comings  of  the  Messiah,  and  so 
two  forerunners.  Thus,  the  mystery  of  two  Elijahs  was  cleared 
up  so  soon  as  the  mystery  of  the  two  comings  was  known.  It  is 
remarked  by  Alford:  "  The  double  allusion  is  only  the  assertion 
that  the  Elias  (in  spirit  and  power)  who  foreran  our  Lord's  first 
coming,  was  a  partial  fulfillment  of  the  great  prophecy,  which 
announces  the  real  Elias  (the  words  of  Malachi  iv.  5,  6,  will 
hardly  bear  any  other  than  a  personal  meaning),  who  is  to  fore- 
run His  greater  and  second  coming." 

The  other  apostles  and  disciples  had  remained  at  the  foot  of 
the  mount,  probably  in  some  town  or  village,  during  the  absence 
of  the  Lord.  In  the  morning,  before  He  descended,  a  crowd 
had  gathered  around  them,  doubtless  seeking  Him  ;  and  in  the 
crowd  was  a  man  who  had  brought  his  lunatic  son  to  be  healed. 
In  the  absence  of  Jesus  he  presented  him  to  the  disciples,  who 
could  not  heal  him.  Among  those  present  were  certain  scribes, 
who,  apparently  taking  occasion  from  their  ill  success,  began  to 
question  with  them,  and  plainly  with  an  evil  intent.  While 
they  were  disputing  with  the  disciples,  Jesus  appeared,  and  was , 
gladly  received  by  the  multitude.  In  answer  to  the  father's 
prayer  He  healed  the  child,  after  a  severe  rebuke  of  the  general 
unbelief.  The  question  afterward  addressed  to  Him  by  the  dis- 
ciples when  alone:  "  Why  could  not  we  cast  him  out?"  shows 
that  they  supposed  the  power  to  work  miracles,  which  had 
been  given  the  Twelve  when  they  were  sent  forth  upon  their 
mission,  was  still  continued  to  them. 

Autumn,  782.     A.  D.  29. 

Departing  from  the  place  where  He  liealed  the  lunatic    Mark  ix.  30-32. 
child,  He   passes  through   Galilee,   avoiding,  as  far  as 
possible,   public  attention,   and  giving  Himself  to  the    Matt.  xvii.  22,  23, 
instruction  of  Ilis  disciples.     He  repeats  the  announce- 
ment respecting  His  death  and  resurrection,  but  they    Luke  ix.  43-45. 


Part  v.]  AMBITION   OF   THE   APOSTLES.  361 

do  not  understand  Him,   and  are  afraid  to  asVc.     After 

some  time  thus  spent  they  come  to  Capernaum.     Peter, 

having  declared  to  the  tax-gatherer  that  his  master  is    Mark  ix.  33-50. 

liable  to  pay  tribute,  goes  by  Christ's  direction  to  the    Matt.  xvii.  24-27. 

sea,  and  finds  the  tribute-money  in  the  mouth  of  a  fish. 

At  Capernaum  He  discourses  to  them  of  their  equality  as    Matt,  xviii.  1-35. 

brethren,  and  teaches  them  who  shall  be  regarded  as  the    Luke  ix.  46-50. 

greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  Heaven. 

If  the  healing  of  the  lunatic  child  was,  as  we  have  supposed, 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Caesarea  Philippi,  the  Lord,  crossing  the 
Jordan  near  its  sources,  would  enter  the  northern  parts  of  Gal- 
ilee, and  thus  journey  toward  Capernaum.  That  this  circuit 
was  not  for  the  purpose  of  public  teaching,  is  expressly  said  by 
Mark  (i:S.  30):  "And  they  departed  thence,  and  passed  through 
Galilee;  and  He  would  not  that  any  man  should  know."  And 
the  reason  is  added  why  He  would  not  be  known,  "  for  He 
taught  His  disciples."  To  instruct  them  more  fully  in  the  truths 
He  had  just  opened  to  them  of  His  approaching  death  and  res- 
urrection, now  occupied  Him,  and  the  presence  of  large  crowds 
would  have  hindered  Him  m  His  purpose.  How  long  this  cir- 
cuit continued  we  do  not  know,  nor  what  particular  parts  of 
Galilee  He  visited.  The  order  of  events  is  as  follows:  healing 
of  the  lunatic  child;  teaching  as  to  the  power  of  prayer;  repe- 
tition of  the  prediction  of  His  death  and  resurrection;  dispute 
of  the  disciples  by  the  way  which  should  be  the  greatest;  pay- 
ment of  the  tribute-money;  teaching  upon  rank  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  Matthew's  language  (xvii.  22) :  "  And  while  they 
abode  in  Galilee,"  or  more  literally,  "while  they  were  going 
about  m  Galilee,"  implies  that  some  time  was  spent  there.' 
The  continued  inability  of  the  disciples  to  understand  the  Lord's 
words  respecting  His  death  and  resurrection  will  surprise  no 
one  acquainted  with  the  Messianic  expectations  of  'the  Jews. 
They  found  it  impossible  to  give  a  literal  interpretation  to  His 
words,  but  they  were  afraid  to  ask  Him  what  He  meant. 

During  these  journey ings,  and  probably  just  before  their 
arrival  at  Capernaum,  a  dispute  had  arisen  among  the  disciples. 


'  But  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.,  have  o-uo-Tpe^oinei'ioi'  for  dfao-rpei^ojiievuii',  meaninu; "'  unit- 
ing or  assembling  themselves."    See  T.    G.   Lex,  and  R.    V.  margin;   compare  Acts 
six.  40;  xxiii.  12,  and  xxviii.  3.    This  seems  to  point  to  a  gathering  together  for  a  depart 
ure  from  Galilee. 
16 


362  THE   LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  V. 

who  shoi;ld  be  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom.  That  He  was  about 
to  reveal  Himself  as  the  Messiah  and  set  up  His  kingdom,  was  a 
belief  still  firmly  rooted  in  their  minds,  and  which  His  mysteri- 
ous words  about  His  death  and  resurrection  seemed  only  to  con- 
firm. They  knew  that  some  great  event  was  approaching;  what 
should  it  be  but  this  long-hoped-for  manifestation  of  the  king- 
dom, when  David's  son  should  sit  on  David's  throne?  It,  there- 
fore, naturally  became  now  a  question  of  deep  personal  interest 
to  those  most  ambitious  among  them,  who  should  fill  the  highest 
places  under  the  new  government.  Perhaps  the  preference  shown 
by  Jesus  to  the  three  whom  He  took  with  Him  upon  the  mount, 
and  whom  He  had  before  specially  honored,  may  have  provoked 
envy  and  occasioned  this  dispute.  It  was  not  till  after  His  arri- 
val at  Capernaum  that  Jesus  took  notice  of  it.  From  Matthew 
(xviii.  1)  it  seems  that  the  incident  of  the  tribute-money  had 
some  connection  with  the  strife,  as  some  of  the  disciples  coming 
to  Him  immediately  after  asked  Him  directly,  "  Who  is  the 
greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven?  "  '  In  the  most  expressive 
way,  by  means  of  a  little  child.  He  teaches  them  that  only  those 
like  little  children,  trustful,  humble,  unambitious,  could  even 
enter  the  heavenly  kingdom. 

The  tax  demanded  of  Jesus  was  the  temple  tax,  which  all 
Jews  were  obliged  to  pay  yearly  (Ex.  xxx.  IS).^  Some,  as  "Wies- 
eler  (Syn.,  265 ;  Beitrage,  1 08),  have  understood  a  civil  tax  payable 
to  the  Romans;  but  against  this  is  the  use  of  "didrachma"  for 
the  tribute,  a  sum  equal  to  the  half  shekel,  the  legal  due.  It  is 
said  by  Schiirer  (II.  i.  250):  "  The  actual  payment  of  the  temple 
tax  in  the  time  of  Christ  is  beyond  doubt.  .  .  .  After  the 
destruction  of  the  temple  it  was  converted  into  a  Roman  tax." 
Besides  thi^,  the  scope  of  the  Lord's  reply  shows  that  the  temple 
tax  is  meant.  As  the  Son  of  God,  He  was  exempt  from  the 
payment  to  which  others  were  bound  for  the  support  of  ecclesi- 
astical services.  Had  it  been  a  civil  tax,  this  reply  would  not 
have  been  so  directly  to  the  purpose.^ 


1  Greswell  (ii.  462)  attempts  to  show  that  the  question  In  Matthew  to  Jesus  was  sub- 
sequent to  His  question  to  the  Apostles  in  Mark  (ix.  S3)  and  in  Luke  (ix.  46).  Some 
Buppose,  as  Keil,  that  the  others  were  displeased  with  the  prominence  given  to 
Peter  at  his  confession,  at  the  Transfiguration,  and  in  the  matter  of  the  tribute  money. 

*  Josephus,  Antiq.,  xviii.  9. 

3  Meyer;  Winer,  ii.  588,  note  3;  Trench,  Mir.,  299;  Alford;  Ellicott,  229;  Keil. 


Part  v.]  JJESUS   AND   THE   TEMPLE   TAX.  363 

According  to  the  Rabbins  this  temple  tax  was  due  between 
the  15th  and  25th  Adar.'  This  would  be  about  the  time  of  the 
Passover.  Greswell,  however,  maintains,  upon  rabbinic  author- 
ity, that  it  was  paid  at  each  of  the  three  great  feasts.  We  can- 
not then  determine  at  what  period  of  the  year  this  demand  of 
tlie  tax-gatherer  was  made.  If  payment  was  legally  due  at  the 
Passover,  still  it  may  not  have  actually  been  demanded  till  a 
later  period.  It  may  be  that,  being  regarded  as  a  prophet,  up 
to  this  time  no  tax  at  all  had  been  demanded  of  Jesus;  and  that 
now,  at  the  instigation  of  His  enemies,  and  for  the  first  time, 
the  demand  was  made.''  Some  suppose  that  the  Rabbins  were 
exempt  from  taxation ,  and  that  the  question  of  the  tax-gatherer 
shows  that  he  had  not  previously  collected  it  of  the  Lord ;  but 
others  draw  the  exactly  opposite  conclusion,  that  He  had 
been  accustomed  to  pay  it.  That  he  should  ask  the  question  of 
Peter,  may  be  explained  from  his  prominent  position  as  a  disci- 
ple, or  because  as  a  resident  m  the  city  he  was  well  known. 
The  inference  of  Bengel,  from  the  fact  that  the  Lord  paid  the 
tax  for  Himself  and  Peter  but  for  none  other  of  the  apostles, 
that  the  others  were  too  young  to  be  taxed,  is  wholly  improbable 
and  unnecessary. 


1  See  Winer,  i.  4.  Caspar!  puts  the  payment  at  this  time,  but  thinks  the  time  of 
the  collection  of  the  temple  tribute  uncertain  ;  Godet,  that  the  form  of  the  Collector's 
question  supposes  a  payment  which  was  at  once  voluntary  and  in  arrears. 

*  See  Lightfoot,  in  loco. 


PART    VI. 

THE  LAST   JOURNEY  FROM  GALILEE,  AND  THE  PER^AN   MINIS- 
TRY, TO  THE  ARRIVAL  AT  BETHANY.    NOV.,   782,  TO  APRIL,  783. 
A.  D.  29,  30. 


Tlie  Lord's  Last  Journey  from    Galilee. 

If  the  views  that  have  ah-eady  been  presented  in  regard  to 
the  divisions  of  the  Lord's  ministry  are  correct,  we  are  in  a  posi- 
tion to  judge  rightly  tlie  statements  of  the  Evangelists  respect- 
ing the  period  that  intervened  between  the  departure  from  GaH- 
lee  and  the  commencement  of  Passion  Week,  a  period  of  about 
five  months.  In  Gahlee  the  Lord  had  accomphshed  His  work. 
He  had  gathered  about  Him  a  considerable  body  of  disciples  (1 
Cor.  XV.  6)  who  saw  in  Him,  with  more  or  less  clearness  of  vis- 
ion, the  Christ  of  the  prophets  and  Son  of  the  living  God;  and 
there  was  also  a  much  larger  number,  who,  unable  to  see  in  Him 
the  Messiah  of  their  hopes,  still  believed  that  He  was  a  prophet 
sent  from  God,  and  heard  His  words  with  reverence.  Besides, 
there  must  have  been  very  many  in  all  parts  of  the  land,  who 
had  seen  His  works,  and  been  more  or  less  impressed  by  them, 
and  yet  had  not  felt  the  power  of  the  truths  He  taught,  and 
were  waiting  to  see  what  His  future  course  would  be.  His 
labors  had  by  no  means  been  in  vain,  although,  as  set  forth  in 
His  own  parable,  but  little  of  the  seed  He  had  so  diligently 
sown  fell  into  good  ground. 

There  are  two  circumstances  that  seemed  to  have  marked, 
if  they  did  not  determine,  the  conclusion  of  the  Galilean  minis- 
try: first,  that  the  Apostles,  not  to  speak  of  other  disciples,  hatl 
learned,  if  imperfectly,  the  mystery  of  the  Lord's  Person  as  the 
Son  of  God;  second,  that  the  machinations  of  His  enemies  at 
Jerusalem  were  arousing  great  hostility  against  Him  in  Galilee, 

(365) 


366  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI. 

and  making  the  further  prosecution  of  His  labors  there  full  of 
difficulty  and  danger.     Both  of  these  points  demand  attention. 

It  needs  no  argument  to  show  that  the  Lord's  ministry  must 
primarily  aim  at  the  recognition,  on  the  part  of  His  disciples,  of 
the  great  fact  that  in  His  Person  "God  was  manifest  in  flesh." 
Until  they  were  able  to  rise  above  the  ordinary  Jewish  concep- 
tions of  the  Messiah,  and  to  see  in  Him  the  Son  of  God,  He 
could  open  to  them  but  little  of  the  divine  purpose.  He  could 
say  nothing  to  them  in  distinct  terms  of  His  death,  resurrection, 
and  ascension.  He  must  continue  with  them  in  person  till, 
through  their  communion  with  Him,  they  should  learn  who  He 
was,  and  what  were  His  relations  to  the  Father.  And,  as  we 
have  seen,  when  Peter,  in  the  name  of  all  the  Apostles,  made  the 
confession  that  He  was  "  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God," 
He  for  the  first  time  announced  to  them  His  approaching  death 
(Matt.  xvi.  21).  This  announcement  it  was  still  very  hard  for 
them  to  understand,  and  perhaps  the  more  that  they  now  knew 
Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God;  for  how  could  men  have  power  over 
Him,  and  what  had  death  to  do  with  Him  ?  But,  however 
imperfectly  held,  the  germ  of  this  great  truth  of  His  divinity 
was  in  their  hearts,  and  they  were  now  in  a  state  to  receive 
those  teachings  of  Jesus  which  had  reference  to  a  heavenly 
kingdom,  one  corresponding  to  the  Person  of  the  King.  Thus 
the  foundation  was  laid  of  that  high  knowledge  of  God's  pur- 
pose in  Him,  which  they  needed  in  their  subsequent  work,  and 
for  which  they  were  further  prepared,  first  by  the  teachings  of 
the  Lord  Himself  after  His  resurrection,  and  then  "by  the  descent 
of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost. 

The  recognition  on  the  part  of  His  disciples  of  His  divine 
Sonship,  and  the  consequent  announcement  to  them  of  His  ap- 
\  ..oaching  deatli,  mark,  therefore,  the  end  of  His  Galilean  min- 
istry. Yet  a  little  time  must  elapse  that  these  truths  might  get 
more  firmly  rooted  in  their  faith  ere  the  terrible  hour  of  His  suf- 
ferings should  come. 

That,  as  His  disciples  grew  in  knowledge  and  faith,  the  dark- 
ness and  bitterness  of  His  enemies  should  increase,  was  but  what 
Jesus  Himself  had  foretold.  All  who  loved  tlie  light  gathered 
around  Him,  the  true  light.     His  words  were  the  test  by  which 


Fart  VI.]      JESUS   REJECTED  BY   THE   GALILEANS.  367 

tlie  thoughts  of  all  hearts  were  revealed;  and  as  His  ministry 
was  prolonged,  and  the  truths  He  taught  were  more  distinctly 
apprehended,  the  line  of  separation  between  His  friends  and  His 
enemies  became  more  and  more  marked.  His  popularity  among 
the  people  seems  to  have  been  at  its  height  about  the  time  of  the 
Baptist's  death,  when,  after  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand, 
many  wished  to  take  Him  by  force  and  make  Him  a  king.  But 
the  nature  of  His  teachings  soon  repelled  not  a  few  who  had 
been  counted  among  His  disciples  (John  vi.  66),  and  the  Phari- 
sees at  Capernaum  and  elsewhere  in  Galilee  became  daily  more 
open  and  virulent  in  their  opposition.  Gradually  the  great 
crowds  that  at  first  thronged  around  Him  diminished;  the  nov- 
elty of  His  first  appearance  passed  away ;  His  calls  to  repentance 
were  by  most  disregarded ;  His  miracles,  wonderful  as  they  were, 
were  not  of  a  kind  to  satisfy  the  populace  that  He  was  the 
expected  Messiah;  His  enemies  were  active  and  unscrupulous  in 
representing  Him  as  a  blasphemer  ;  His  nearest  and  most  trusted 
disciples  were  uninfluential  and  obscure  men,  publicans,  fisher- 
men, and  the  like.  It  is  not,  therefore,  in  itself  at  all  strange 
that  there  was  not  in  Galilee  at  the  end  of  His  ministry  any 
general  belief  in  His  Messianic  character.  Against  those  cities 
which  He  had  often  visited,  and  where  He  had  wrought  many 
works,  He  pronounced  a  fearful  judgment.  Thus,  in  Galilee,  as 
in  Judaea,  Jesus  was  despised  and  rejected  of  men. 

But  the  Lord  did  not  yet  forsake  His  people.  He  would  make 
one  more,  and  a  final  appeal.  Up  to  this  time  He  had  not 
openly  and  expressly  declared  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah,  either 
in  Judaea  or  in  Galilee.  He  had  left  the  Jews  to  judge  for 
themselves  from  His  teachings  and  His  works,  who  He  was. 
But  they  did  not  for  the  most  part  discern  Him.  Their  precon- 
ceived opinions  of  the  Messiah  and  of  His  work  prevented 
them  from  recognizing  Him  in  the  obscure,  humble,  peaceful 
Galilean,  mighty  as  were  His  miracles  and  sublime  as  were  His 
teachings.  If  the  Messiah,  why  did  He  not  establish  His  king- 
dom? Yet,  while  thus  not  answering  to  the  popular  apprehen- 
sions of  the  Messiah,  He  seemed  in  His  discourses  to  claim 
higher  rank  and  power  than  even  the  Messiah  could  claim,  a 
mysterious  relationship  to  God  which  was  blasphemous,     Thus, 


368  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI. 

on  the  one  side,  His  silence  respecting  His  Messiabsliip  and  His 
inactivity  caused  many,  who  were  astonished  at  His  works  and 
words,  to  look  upon  Him  only  as  a  prophet;  and  on  the  other, 
His  repeated  allusions  to  His  divine  Sonship  drew  upon  Him 
the  enmity  of  many  as  a  blasphemer. 

But  while  it  was  the  will  of  God  that  His  people  should  be 
left  at  first  to  recognize  His  Son  by  His  words  and  works,  and 
thus  to  test  them,  yet  He  willed  also  that  there  should  be  borne 
clear  and  full  testimony  to  His  Messianic  character,  that  all 
might  be  without  excuse.  Such  testimony  John  the  Baptist  had 
borne;  and  to  this  was  now  added  that  of  all  His  disciples,  who 
in  the  very  fact  of  their  discipleship  proclaimed  Him  to  be  the 
Messiah.  He  had  not  indeed  permitted  the  Apostles  to  proclaim 
Him  by  name  (Matt.  xvi.  20),  because  He  then  for  their  sake 
avoided  pubUcity.  Had  they  done  so,  such  an  announcement 
made  authoritatively  by  those  nearest  Him,  would  at  once  have 
rallied  around  Him  all  those  cherishing  the  current  Messianic 
hopes,  and  have  cast  the  Apostles  back  into  that  lower  region 
of  thought  and  feeling,  from  which  He  was  endeavoring  to  lift 
them.  But  the  time  had  now  come  when  His  Messianic  char- 
acter must  be  publicly  asserted,  that  the  whole  nation  might 
know  that  He  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  David,  the  King  of 
Israel;  and  if  rejected,  He  must  be  rejected  as  such.  The  peo- 
ple should  not  be  left  in  doubt  whether  He  asserted  Himself  to 
be  more  than  a  simple  prophet,  or,  like  the  Baptist,  a  forerunner 
of  the  Messiah.  He  will  go  up  to  Jerusalem;  for  if  it  cannot 
be  that  a  prophet  perish  out  of  Jerusalem,  how.  much  more  is 
this  true  of  the  Son  of  God  ?  and  He  will  go  with  every  circum- 
stance of  publicity,  to  be  received  or  finally  rejected  by  those 
whom  God  had  set  to  be  the  heads  of  the  people.  It  must  be  a 
national  act,  and  must  not  be  done  in  ignorance.  In  Judtea,  He 
had  testified  of  Himself  as  the  Son  of  God.  but  in  vain.  Now 
He  will  return  thither,  and  His  disciples  shall  bear  witness  to 
Him,  if,  perchance,  the  nation  will  hear  them.  To  this  end  His 
messengers  shall  go  before  Him  into  every  place  where  He  de- 
signed to  go,  and  announce  the  kingdom  of  God  at  hand  in  the 
Person  of  the  King. 

Here,  then,  we  find  the  grand  peculiarity  of  the  Lord's  last 


Part  VI.]       FINAL   DEPARTURE  FROM   GALILEE.  369 

journey  to  Jerusalem.  As  He  knew,  and  had  declared  to  His 
Apostles,  He  went  up  to  die;  but  to  the  Jewish  people  the  issue  of 
His  journey  was  not  known,  and  the  secret  purpose  of  God  did 
not  hinder  this  last  appeal  to  them  to  repent  and  receive  their 
Lord. 

Before  entering  upon  the  details  of  this  last  journey,  it  will  be 
well  to  consider  its  general  features.  To  reconcile  the  various  state- 
ments of  the  Evangelists  respecting  it,  is  one  of  the  most  difficult 
tasks  that  meet  the  harmonist.  That  we  may  see  clearly  the  points 
of  difference,  it  will  be  well  to  examine  the  statements  of  eacli 
Evangelist  separately. 

1.      The  time  of  the  final  departure.     As  John  gives  the  most  dis 
tinct  notices  of  time,  we  begin  with  his  narrative. 

About  the  middle  of  October  782  (A.  D.  29)  the  Lord  goes  up 
to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (John  vii.  10).  As  to  the  time  of  this 
feast  and  the  manner  of  its  observance,  and  the  Lord's  words  and 
work  during  it,  we  have  already  spoken.  He  went  up,  "not  ojoenly, 
but  as  it  were  in  secret,"  and  continued  in  Jerusalem  to  the  end  of 
the  feast.  Whether  He  then  left  the  city,  is  not  said,  and  we  iind 
Him  there  some  two  months  later  at  the  Feast  of  Dedication  in 
December.  After  this  feast,  His  enemies  seeking  to  arrest  Him,  "He 
escaped  out  of  their  hand,  and  went  away  again  beyond  Jordan  unto 
the  place  where  John  at  first  baptized,  and  there  He  abode  "  (x.  40). 
How  long  He  abode  here  is  not  said,  but  after  an  interval,  longer  or 
shorter,  He  was  called  to  go  up  to  Bethany  to  see  Lazarus  about  to 
die  (xi.  1).  After  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  He  did  not  return  at 
once  beyond  Jordan;  and  His  enemies  becoming  more  hostile,  "  He 
walked  no  more  openly  among  the  Jews,  but  went  thence  unto  a 
country  near  to  the  wilderness,  into  a  city  called  Ephraim,  and  there 
continued  with  His  disci2:)les"  (xi.  54).  From  Ephraim  a  little  l)efore 
the  Passover  of  April  783  (30  A.  D.),  He  went  up  to  that  feast  by  way 
of  Bethany  Cxi.  55;  xii.  1). 

We  liave  thus  in  John  a  chronological  outline  of  the  chief  events 
of  the  last  six  months  of  the  Lord's  life  and  ministry.  He  was  in 
Galilee,  and  went  thence  to  Jerusalem,  and  was  in  that  city  in  Octo- 
ber and  again  in  December.  Afterward  He  was  beyond  Jordan, 
where  Jolui  at  first  baptized,  and  from  there  went  to  Bethany  close 
by  Jerusalem.  From  Bethany  He  went  to  Ephraim,  and  from 
Ephraim  went  up  a  little  later  to  the  Passover.  He  was  thus 
present  at  three  consecutive  feasts,  and  the  time  of  these  feasts  is 
known  —  Tabernacles  in  October,  Dedication  in  December,  782,  and 
Passover  in  April,  783;  but  where  He  was  in  the  interval  from 
16* 


370  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI, 

Tabernacles  to  Dedication  —  October  to  December;  or  how  long  was 
the  interval  between  His  journey  beyond  Jordan  and  His  going  up  to 
raise  Lazarus;  and  how  long  his  sojourn  at  Ephraira,  we  are  not 
told.  Had  we  John's  narrative  only,  we  should  infer  that  He  did  not 
return  to  Galilee  at  all  after  He  went  up  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles. 
His  journey  to  this  feast  "  not  openly,  but  as  it  were  in  secret,"  six 
months  before  His  death,  was  the  final  departure  from  Galilee. 

But  we  have  still  to  examine  the  accounts  of  the  Synoptists. 
Matthew  (xix.  1)  mentions  a  departure  from  Galilee:  "When  Jesus 
had  finished  these  sayings.  He  departed  from  Galilee,  and  came  into 
the  coasts  of  Judjea  beyond  Jordan."  Mark  says  (x.  1):  '"And 
He  arose  from  thence,  and  conietli  into  the  coasts  of  Judaea  by  the 
farther  side  of  Jordan."  Without  entering  now  into  a  particular 
examination  of  these  statements,  we  find  mention  here  of  a  departure 
from  Galilee,  and  the  only  one  mentioned  by  them;  but  there  is  noth- 
ing to  indicate  the  time  of  the  departure,  and  the  events  mentioned 
as  taking  place  after  it  and  before  His  arrival  at  Jericho  are  very  few. 
(Matt.  xix.  2.  — XX.  28;  Mark  x.  1-45.)  Turning  to  Luke  we  find  no 
mention  in  so  many  words  of  a  departure  from  Galilee,  but  a  state- 
ment equivalent  to  it  (ix.  51):  "And  it  came  to  pass  when  the  time 
was  come  that  He  should  be  received  up,  He  steadfastly  set  His  face 
to  go  to  Jerusalem."  That  the  starting  point  of  this  journey  was  in 
Galilee  cannot  be  doubted;  and  the  words  clearly  imply  that,  knowing 
the  time  of  His  death  and  ascension  to  be  at  hand.  He  left  Galilee  and 
w^ent  up  to  Jerusalem  to  suffer  and  die.  That  this  was  not  intention 
only,  is  shown  by  the  context:  "He  sent  messengers  before  His  face, 
and  they  went,"  etc.  This,  therefore,  seems  to  have  been  the  final 
departure  from  Galilee,  and  the  same  as  the  departure  spoken  of  by 
Matthew  and  Mark.  But  is  it  to  be  identified  with  that  to  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles  (John  vii.  10)?  Although  the  identification  is  accepted 
by  many,  the  arguments  for  it  are  insufficient.  They  are  in  substance 
these;  that  the  Lord  did  not,  so  far  as  is  said  in  John,  return  to 
Galilee  after  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  and  if  He  had  done  so,  John 
would  have  mentioned  it;  that  the  Lord  went  up  "as  in  secret"  by 
avoiding  the  i)ilgrim  caravans,  and  taking  the  route  through  Samaria; 
and  that  much  that  Luke  relates  after  ix.  51  took  i)lace  earlier  in 
Galilee,  showing  that  he  does  not  speak  of  a  continuous  journey. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  very  strong  objections  to  this  iden- 
tification ;  we  mention  some  of  the  most  important,  (a.)  The  Lord 
refused  to  go  up  with  His  brethren  (John  vii.  6):  "My  time  is  not 
yet  come.  ...  Go  ye  up  unto  this  feast;  I  go  not  up  yet  unto 
this  feast;   for  my  time  is  not  yet  full  come.")     This  solemn  assur- 


Part  VI.]    JOURNEY   TO   FEAST   OF   TABERNACLES.  371 

ance:  "My  time  is  not  yet  full  come,  but  your  time  is  always  ready," 
must  mean  more  than  that  they  would  go  up  two  or  three  days  before 
Him.  The  reference  is  clearly  to  the  time  of  His  suffering,  and  to 
the  Messianic  manifestation  that  should  precede  it.  He  would  show 
Himself  openly  to  the  world  in  Judjea  as  His  brethren  desired,  but 
not  till  the  time  appointed  of  God  had  come ;  till  then  He  must  avoid 
publicity.  And  this  time  was  when,  the  Passover  drawing  near 
when  He  must  suffer,  He  steadfastly  set  His  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem. 

(b.)  The  manner  of  the  two  journeys  is  wholly  unlike.  According 
to  Luke,  He  goes  with  great  publicity,  accompanied  by  the  apostles 
and  probably  other  disciples,  so  that  it  is  necessary  to  send  messen- 
gers before  Him  "  to  make  ready  for  Him  " ;  according  to  John,  "  not 
publicly,  but  as  it  were  in  secret."  That  He  went  by  way  of 
Samaria  is  no  indication  that  He  sought  privacy  by  avoiding  the 
train  of  Galilsean  pilgrims,  for  Josephus  expressly  sr.ys  (Antiq.,  xx.  6. 
1)  that  it  was  the  custom  of  Galilaean  feast-pilgrims  to  take  their 
journeys  through  the  country  of  the  Samaritans.  (But  see  Eders- 
heim,  ii.  131.)  In  this  last  journey  He  was  preceded  by  the  Seventy 
(Luke  X.  1),  whose  words  announcing  the  kingdom  of  God  as  at  hand, 
must  have  called  general  attention  to  Him;  and  in  fact  He  was  fol- 
lowed by  crowds  of  people.  "Great  multitudes  followed  Him" 
(Matt.  xix.  2). 

(c.)  According  to  John,  He  went  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem  very 
rapidly,  since,  leaving  after  His  brethren  had  gone.  He  appeared  there 
about  the  middle  of  the  feast.  There  is  nothing  in  Luke  to  imply 
such  rapidity,  rather  that  He  went  slowly,  following  the  Seventy, 
making  wide  circuits,  and  passing  through  many  villages,  teaching 
uud  working  miracles. 

On  these  grounds  we  must  refuse  to  identify  the  journey  of  Luke 
(ix.  51)  with  that  of  John  (vii.  10),  and  must  accept  the  judgment  of 
Neander  (303,  note)  that  "the  two  accounts  are  utterly  in  conflict." " 

Whether  a  return  to  Galilee  after  Talernncles.  —  If,  then,  we 
conclude  that  the  departure  in  Luke  (ix.  51)  is  not  the  same 
with  the  journey  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  it  must  have  been 
later,  and  the  Lord  must,  therefore,  have  returned  to  Galilee  after 
that  feast.  When  did  He  return  ?  On  examining  John's  narra- 
tive, we  find  that  He  might  have  returned:  1st,  after  Tabernacles, 


1  SoBengel,  DeWette,  Gresvvell,  Ebrard,  Alford,  Licht.,  Godet,  Meyer,  Baumgar 
ten,  Riggenbach,  Lewin,  Farrar,  McCIellan,  Pressense. 

For  their  identity:  Lightfoot,  Robinson,  Wiet-eler,  Abp.  Thomson,  Friedlieb,  M.  and 
M.,  Caspari,  Ellicott,  Oosterzee,  Gardiner,  Edersheim,  Puller.  It  does  not  follow  that 
all  who  identify  the  two  look  upon  this  journey  to  Tabernacles  as  the  final  departure 
from  Galilee.  Not  a  few  hold  that  he  did,  after  the  feast,  return  there.  So  Lightfoot, 
Caspari,  Abp.  Thomson,  Oosterzee. 


372  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Fait  VI. 

either  immediately  or  sometime  in  the  interval  between  this  feast  and 
Dedication  (John  x.  32);  3d,  after  Dedication  (John  x.  39);  3d,  after 
the  sojourn  in  Ephraim  (John  xi.  54).  Each  of  these  times  has  its 
advocates.  Which  of  these  is  to  be  preferred  will  be  later  considered. 
It  will  help  to  give  clearer  conceptions  of  the  points  before  us,  if 
we  examine  several  differing  arrangements  of  the  events  from  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles  to  the  arrival  at  Bethany  six  days  before  the  last 
Passover.  We  have  here  a  period  of  six  months,  which  may  be 
divided  into  two :  from  Tabernacles  to  Dedication,  two  months ;  from 
Dedication  to  last  Passover,  four  montlis. 

I.  Arrangements  which  make  no  return  to  Galilee  after  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles  in  October,  His  Galilean  ministry  being  completed. 

Ribinson:  1.  The  Lord  goes  up  from  Galilee  to  Tabernacles  (Luke 
ix.  51,  John  vii.  10).  On  the  way  heals  ten  lepers  (Luke  xvii.  11). 
3.  After  the  feast,  remains  in  Jud«a;  visits  the  house  of  Martha 
(Luke  X.  38);  the  Seventy,  sent  out  before  He  left  Galilee,  now  return 
to  Him  at  Jerusalem;  heals  the  blind  man  there,  and  teaches.  3. 
In  Jerusalem  at  Dedication.  4.  Goes  thence  beyond  Jordan  where 
John  baptized  (John  x.  40).  5.  Goes  up  to  Bethany  to  raise  Laza- 
rus. 6.  Retires  to  Ephraim.  7.  Leaves  Ephraim  to  go  to  last 
Passover  by  way  of  Persea  and  Jericho.  It  is  tliis  journey  from 
Ephraim  which  is  spoken  of  by  Matt.  xix.  1,  Mark  x.  1 ;  and  during 
it  most  of  the  events  (Luke  xiii.  10  to  xviii.  35)  took  place. 

Wieseler:  1.  Goes  up  to  Tabernacles  (Luke  ix.  51,  John  vii.  10), 
on  the  way  sends  the  Seventy,  and  visits  the  house  of  Martha.  3. 
After  the  feast,  remains  till  Dedication  in  Juda;a.  3.  Goes  to  Jeru- 
salem to  Dedication.  4.  Goes  to  Peraea  where  John  baptized.  5. 
Goes  to  Bethany  to  raise  Lazarus  (Luke  xiii.  32  to  xvii.  10).  6. 
Retires  to  Ephraim.  7.  Leaves  Ephraim  for  last  Passover,  and  on 
the  way  heals  the  ten  lepers.  This  is  the  same  journey  as  Matt.  xix. 
1,  and  Mark  x.  1,  and  Luke  xvii.  11. 

O nr (liner :  1.  Goes  up  to  Tabernacles  (^Matt.  xix.  1,  Mark  x.  1, 
Luke  ix.  51,  John  vii.  10);  imal)le  to  pass  through  Samaria,  He 
enters  Peraja,  and  on  the  way  sends  the  Seventy;  heals  the  ten  lepers; 
visits  Martha.  3.  After  the  feast,  returns  to  Persea  and  teaches 
(Luke  X.  17  to  xiii.  17).  3.  Goes  up  to  Dedication.  4.  After  Dedica- 
tion, retires  beyond  Jordan  (Luke  xiii.  33  to  xvii.  10).  5.  Goes  up  to 
Bethany  to  raise  Lazarus.  6.  Retires  to  Ephraim.  7.  Goes  up  to 
Jerusalem  to  last  Passover  by  Jericho  (Luke  xvii.  20  to  xviii.  34). 

II.  Arrangements  which  make  one  return  to  Galilee  after  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles. 

(a)     After  Tabernacles  and  before  Dedication. 


Part  VI.]  TIME   OP   THE   LAST  JOURNEY.  373 

Ebrard:  1.  The  Lord  returns  to  Galilee.  2.  Journeys  to  Tyre  and 
Sidon;  comes  to  Decapolis;  feeds  the  four  thousand.  3.  Goes  to 
Csesarea  Philippi ;  the  Transfiguration ;  returns  to  Capernaum.  4. 
Goes  up  to  Dedication  (Luke  ix.  51,  Jolin  x.  22).  5.  Retires  beyond 
Jordan  (Matt.  xix.  1,  Mark  x.  1,  John  x.  40).  6.  Goes  up  to  raise 
Lazarus.  7.  Returns  to  Ephraim.  8.  Journeys  to  Jerusalem  by  Jer- 
icho. 

Lichtenstein  :  1.  The  Lord  returns  to  Galilee.  2.  Goes  to  Csesa^ 
rea  Philippi,  is  transfigured,  returns  to  Capernaum.  3.  Leaves  Gali- 
lee and  goes  by  way  of  Samaria  (Luke  ix.  51) ;  heals  the  ten  lepers  on 
the  border  of  Samaria  and  Galilee;  crosses  the  Jordan  into  Persea; 
ministers  there,  and  sends  the  Seventy.  4.  Goes  up  to  Dedication. 
5.  Returns  to  Peraja.  6.  Goes  to  raise  Lazarus.  7.  Sojourns  in 
Ephraim;  and  goes  from  there  by  Jericho  to  last  Passover. 

It  will  be  noted  that  these  two  arrangements  differ  in  this :  that 
the  first  puts  both  the  journey  to  Tyre  and  Sidon  and  that  to 
Csesarea  Philippi  after  the  Lord's  return  to  Galilee;  the  last,  only 
that  to  Csesarea  Philippi. 

(&)     After  Dedication. 

Bengel :  1.  The  Lord  goes  to  Galilee  by  way  of  Persea,  visits 
Cfesarea  Philippi,  is  transfigured,  returns  to  Capernaum.  2.  Leaves 
Capernaum  and  goes  by  way  of  Samaria,  crosses  the  Jordan  into 
Peraea,  from  Persea  sends  the  Seventy,  remains  there  preaching  and 
teaching  (Luke  x.  25  to  xviii.  14).  3.  Goes  up  to  raise  Lazarus.  4. 
Retires  to  Ephraim.     5.  Goes  up  by  Jericho  to  last  Passover. 

McGleUaa :  1.  The  Lord  returns  to  Capernaum,  goes  to  Caesarea 
Philippi,  is  transfigured,  returns  to  Capernaum.  2.  Goes  through 
lower  Galilee  and  along  the  confines  of  Samaria  and  Galilee  to  Peraea, 
and  there  teaches.  3.  Goes  up  to  raise  Lazarus.  4.  Retires  to 
Ephraim.  5.  From  Ephraim  returns  to  east  side  of  the  Jordan,  and 
goes  to  last  Passover  by  Jericho. 

(c)     After  the  sojourn  in  Ephraim. 

Pound:  1.  Goes  from  Ephraim  through  Samaria  into  Galilee 
(Luke  xvii.  11).  2.  Goes  into  Peraja  (Matt.  xix.  13  to  xx.  28).  3. 
Goes  up  to  Jerusalem  by  Jericho. 

IIL  Arrangements  which  make  two  returns  to  Galilee  after 
Tabernacles.  One  return  after  Tabernacles,  and  another  after  Dedi- 
cation. 

Caspar i :  1.  The  Lord  returns  to  Capernaum  after  Tabernacles, 
from  there  sends  the  Seventy.  2.  Goes  up  to  Dedication,  visits 
Martha.  3.  After  Dedication,  goes  into  Peraea  (Matt.  xix.  1,  Mark 
X.  1).     4.  Goes  up  to  raise  Lazarus.     5.  Retires  to  Ephraim.     6.  Jour- 


374  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LOKU.  [Viiri  Vl. 

neys  through  the  confines  of  Samaria  to  Galilee,  heals  the  ten  lepers, 
and  goes  to  Jerusalem  by  way  of  Jericho. 

Gres'well:  1.  The  Lord  returns  to  Capernaum  after  Tabernacles  (of 
what  He  did  at  this  time  we  have  no  account).  2.  Goes  up  to  Dedi- 
cation. 3.  Goes  into  Peraea.  4.  Goes  up  to  raise  Lazarus.  5. 
Retires  to  Ephraim.  6.  Goes  into  Galilee  by  way  of  Samaria,  sends 
out  the  Seventy,  goes  to  Capernaum  where  the  Seventy  rejoin  Him. 
7.  Leaves  Capernaum  (Luke  ix.  51),  and  goes  up  by  Jericho  to  last 
Passover. 

Edersheim,  who  puts  no  return  to  Galilee  after  Tabernacles,  makes 
the  Lord,  after  leaving  Ephraim,  to  have  passed  on  the  border  line 
of  Galilee  and  Samaria,  and  to  have  healed  the  ten  lepers. 

In  choosing  among  these  several  arrangements  there  is  much  diffi- 
culty;  it  must  be  a  matter  of  probabilities,  and  it  will  be  necessary  to 
examine  them  somewhat  in  detail. 

Arrangement  which  denies  any  return  to  Oalilee  after  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles. — (The  fact  that  the  Lord,  after  He  left  Ephraim,  may 
have  passed  over  the  border  into  Galilee,  is  not  important  if  He  did 
not  go  there  for  any  act  of  ministry.)  If,  then.  His  Galilsean  work 
was  completed  when  He  went  up  to  Tabernacles  in  October,  there 
remained  a  period  of  two  months  to  Dedication,  and  one  of  four 
months  after  it.  How  was  this  time  from  Tabernacles  to  Dedication 
spent  ?  According  to  McClellan,  in  seclusion ;  according  to  Robin- 
son, He  taught  in  Judaea  and  Jerusalem ;  according  to  Gardiner,  He 
went  to  Peraea  and  taught ;  according  to  Pound,  He  taught  both  in 
South  Judgea  and  in  Peraea. 

Against  the  supjiositiou  that  He  spent  this  interval  in  Jerusalem 
or  in  Judaea,  is  the  statement  (John  vii.  1)  that  "He  would  not  walk 
in  Jewry  because  the  Jews  sought  to  kill  Him. "  The  hatred  of  the 
Jews  did  not  permit  Him  to  remain  in  Judaea  to  teach;  and  on  this 
ground  He  appears  to  have  passed  by  several  of  the  feasts.  It  is 
highly  improbable,  then,  that  after  the  reception  He  had  met  at  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles,  when  a  formal  attempt  was  made  to  arrest  Him, 
and  the  populace  had  taken  up  stones  to  stone  Him,  He  should  have 
remained  in  Judaea  till  the  next  feast,  exposed  to  their  machinations.' 

If  the  Lord  remained  after  the  feast  to  carry  on  a  work  in  Judaea, 
of  what  nature  was  it?  Was  it  a  repetition  of  His  earlier  work  of 
witness  to  the  rulers?  There  is  no  hint  of  this,  and  they  had  long 
since  arrayed  themselves  against  Him.  Was  it  a  repetition  of  His 
work  in  Galilee,  having  for  its  end  tlie  gathering  of  disciples?  There 
is  no  hint  of  this.  It  is  not  said  that  He  went  about  teaching  and 
preaching  in  the  synagogues;  all  His  public  activity,  so  far  as  re- 

•  Luthardt,  ii.  74;  Lichtenstein,  299. 


Part  VI.]  LAST   MINISTRY   IN   GALILEE.  375 

corded,  both  at  this  feast  and  at  Dedication,  was  in  the  temple.  At 
this  time  the  Twelve  were  doubtless  with  Him,  for  at  such  a  critical 
period  He  would  not  be  separated  from  them ;  and  their  presence  would 
have  aroused  in  still  greater  degree  the  anger  of  the  rulers,  and 
prompted  them  to  His  immediate  arrest  while  still  in  their  power. 
If,  then,  for  these  reasons  we  cannot  believe  that  the  Lord  carried  on 
a  Galilsean  ministry  in  Jerusalem  and  Judaea,  and  if  He  could  not  have 
remained  so  long  in  seclusion  unmolested,  we  must  either  hold  that 
He  began  at  this  time  His  ministry  in  Persea,  or  returned  to  Galilee. 
Tliat  He  did  not  go  to  Persea  from  Jerusalem,  appears  from  the  state- 
ment of  Matthew  xix.  1,  that  He  went  from  Galilee  to  the  region 
beyond  Jordan.  We  conclude  then,  that  the  Lord  had  not  finished 
His  work  in  Galilee  when  He  went  up  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles, 
and  that  He  returned  soon  after  it  to  Galilee. 

RetutTi  after  Talcrnadcs. — Accepting  this  return,  we  ask,  What 
was  the  Lord's  work  in  Galilee  after  His  return  ?  Here  there  is  not 
agreement  among  harmonists.  The  question  is,  where  to  find  in  the 
Syuoptists  a  place  to  insert  this  journey  to  Tabernacles,  and  where 
to  find  in  John  a  place  to  insert  a  return  to  Galilee.  Of  the  two 
possible  arrangements,  one  puts  the  journey  to  Tabernacles  just  before 
the  circuit  through  Tyre  and  Sidon  (in  Matt.  xv.  after  verse  20,  in 
i\Iark  vii.  after  verse  28).  We  thus  obtain  the  following  order: 
1 .  The  Lord  returns  from  Tabernacles  to  Galilee.  2.  Makes  a  circuit 
through  Tyre  and  Sidon  to  the  Decapolis.  3,  Heals  the  man  with 
an  impediment  in  his  speech;  feeds  the  four  thousand.  4.  Goes  to 
Dalmauutha;  goes  to  Bethsaida,  heals  a  blind  man.  5.  Goes  to 
Cajsarea  Philippi;  Transfiguration.  6.  Returns  to  Capernaum;  pays 
temple  tax.     7.  Final  departure  from  Galilee. 

If  we  grant  that  there  is  nothing,  so  far  as  the  language  of 
Matthew  and  Mark  is  concerned,  that  forbids  vis  to  insert  this 
journey  to  Tabernacles  before  the  journey  to  Tyre  and  Sidon,  yet 
tliere  is  a  very  strong  objection  from  the  fact  that  so  little  is  recorded 
of  the  Lord's  ministry  during  the  period  —  some  six  months  —  from 
the  Passover  (.John  vi.  4)  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  following  in 
October.  Matthew  (xv.  1,  ff.)  and  Mark  (vii.  2,  ff.)  give  the  Lord's  dis- 
course to  the  Pharisees  about  eating  with  unwashen  hands,  which 
was  soon  after  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand;  and  then  speak  of 
the  circuit  in  Tyre  and  Sidon.  We  must,  therefore,  conclude,  either 
that  this  circuit  was  before  Tabernacles,  or  that  several  months  passed 
of  which  the  Synoptists  say  nothing;  and  the  former  is  far  the  more 
l)robable. 

If,  then,  we  cannot  put  the  journey  to  Tabernacles  before  the 


376  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI. 

circuit  in  Tyre  and  Sidon,  can  we  put  it  later  ?  Such  later  period  we 
find  just  before  the  circuit  through  Csesarea  Philippi,  and  inserting 
it  in  Matthew  xvi.  after  verse  12,  and  in  Mark  viii.  after  verse  26; 
we  obtain  the  following  order:  1.  The  Lord  returns  from  Taber- 
nacles to  Galilee.  2.  Goes  up  to  Caesarea  Philippi ;  the  Transfigura- 
tion. 3.  Returns  to  Capernaum,  j^ays  the  temple  tax.  4.  Final 
departure  from  Galilee. 

That  this  journey  to  Tabernacles  may  be  inserted  in  Matthew  at 
the  place  mentioned,  is  plain,  there  being  nothing  in  the  narrative  to 
intimate  strict  chronological  sequence.  But  in  Mark  such  sequence 
is  aflirmed  by  many.  His  words  are:  "  And  Jesus  went  out  and  His 
disciples  into  the  towns  of  Caesarea  Philippi."  The  phrase  "went 
out "  —  i^7}\dev — ^  it  is  said,  refers  to  His  departure  from  the  place  just 
before  mentioned  —  Bethsaida  (verse  22);  and  as  this  was  on  the  east 
of  the  Jordan,  the  inference  is  that  Pie  now  went  immediately  up  on 
the  east  side  to  Caesarea  Philippi.  But  it  is  observed  by  Alexander, 
in  loco :  "Neither  Evangelist  assigns  the  date  of  this  transaction, 
even  by  connecting  it  expressly  with  the  previous  context  as  imme- 
diately successive.  Into  the  towns  dependent  upon  this  important 
city,  Jesus  came  with  His  disciples,  when  or  whence  is  not  recorded. 
'  Went  out '  throws  no  light  upon  this  point,  as  it  may  refer  to  any 
going  forth  for  any  purpose,  even  from  a  private  house,  or  from 
Capernaum,  as  the  center  of  His  operations,  on  a  new  oflacial  circuit." 

We  may,  then,  without  violence,  insert  after  the  miracle  at  Beth- 
saida the  journey  to  Tabernacles.  The  Lord  returns  from  Bethsaida 
to  Capernaum  —  an  hour's  walk  — ■  where  He  probably  meets  His 
brethren  (John  vii.  3),  and  from  thence  goes  up  to  Jerusalem. 

In  all  these  questions  Luke  gives  us  no  help,  since  he  says  nothing 
of  the  circuit  in  Tyre  and  Sidon,  of  the  feeding  of  the  four  thousand, 
of  the  journey  to  Caesarea;  but  passes  at  once  from  the  feeding  of 
the  five  thousand  to  the  confession  of  Peter  and  the  Transfiguration, 
and  without  any  mention  of  the  region  where  these  occurred  (Luke 
ix.  18). 

But  the  point  remains ;  Wherein  John's  narrative  can  we  insert 
this  return  to  Galilee?  It  must  be  in  ch.  x.  between  verses  21  and  22. 
There  seems  to  be  no  valid  objection  to  this,  as  there  is  an  interval  of 
two  months  which  this  Evangelist  passes  over  in  silence  (see  Godet, 
in  loco). 

(In  former  editions  of  this  book,  the  order  was  followed  which 
makes  the  Lord  to  have  returned  to  Galilee  after  Tabernacles,  but 
only  to  send  the  Seventy,  His  ministry  there  having  been  completed. 
A  more  careful  consideration  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  He  went  to 


Part  VI.]  TIME   OF  RETURN   TO   GALILEE.  37? 

Tabernacles  before  His  Galilsean  ministry  was  ended,  and  that  He 
returned  to  complete  it.) 

Return  after  Dedication. — But  many  affirm  that  the  Lord  did  not 
go  to  Galilee  after  Tabernacles,  but  later,  after  Dedication.  This 
order  must  therefore  be  examined.  In  this  case  we  meet,  first,  the 
improbability  that  He  remained  all  the  interval  from  Tabernacles  to 
Dedication  in  Jerusalem  or  Judaea.     This  has  been  already  spoken  of. 

A  second  objection  is  found  in  the  difficulty  of  inserting  a  journey 
to  Galilee  after  Dedication  in  the  narrative  of  John.  The  only  place 
for  it  is  in  ch.  x.  after  verse  39:  "They  sought  again  to  take  Him,  but 
He  escaped  out  of  tlieir  liand,  and  went  away  again  beyond  Jordan." 
(In  the  E.  V. :  "  He  went  forth  out  of  their  hand."  Verse  40  begins 
a  new  paragrajjh.  So  in  Greek  text  of  Tisch.,  W.  and  II.,  and  in 
several  translations.)  It  is  certainly  possible  to  put  here  after  His 
escape  from  Jerusalem  a  joiu-ney  to  Galilee,  a  ministry  there  of  some 
duration,  and  a  return  to  the  Jordan ;  but  the  scope  of  the  narrative 
is  against  it. 

Those  who  hold  this  order  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  Lord's  work 
after  He  returned  to  Galilee ;  but  most,  as  Stier,  say  that  the  circuit 
to  Ctesarea  Philippi  then  took  place,  the  return  to  Capernaum,  and 
the  final  departure  to  the  last  Passover.  But  so  late  a  departure 
increases  the  difficulty  of  explaining  the  circuitous  route,  the  Lord's 
visit  to  Martha  at  Bethany,  and  His  presence  later  ir.  "the  midst  of 
Samaria  and  Galilee." 

Hcturn  after  sojourn  in  Ephraim. — Again,  as  we  have  seen,  some 
hold  that  the  Lord  returned  to  Galilee  at  a  much  later  period  —  after 
the  sojourn  in  Ephraim  (John  xi.  54)  —  to  complete  His  ministry. 
The  chief  representative  of  this  order  is  Greswell,  who  says  (ii.  529), 
that  "all  the  notices  in  Luke  from  ix.  51  to  xvii.  11  belong  to  the 
course  and  continuance  of  one  and  the  same  journey,  begun  at 
Ephraim  and  terminated  at  Jerusalem,  but  visiting  in  the  interim 
Galilee  and  Peraja  also."  This  is  the  final  departure  from  Galilee, 
and  is  that  mentioned  in  Matt.  xix.  1 ;  Mark  x.  1 ;  Luke  xvii.  11 ;  and 
it  is  on  this  journey  that  He  was  accompanied  by  the  women  (Luke 
xxiii.  49).  Ederslieim  agrees  with  Greswell  in  putting  a  return  to 
Galilee  after  the  sojourn  in  Ephraim;  but  it  was  not  to  resume  His 
ministry  there,  only  to  meet  His  disciples  and  go  up  with  them  to 
the  Passover. 

But  against  this  late  return  to  Galilee  there  are  strong  objections. 
The  retirement  of  the  Lord  to  Ephraim  was  to  escape  the  notice  of 
His  enemies,  who  had  determined  to  put  Him  to  death.  It  was 
clearly  chosen  as  a  hiding  place,   because  they  "had  given  a  com- 


3^8  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI. 

mandment,'  that  if  any  knew  wliere  He  were,  they  should  show  it 
that  they  might  take  Him " ;  and  we  are  told  that  "He  continued  there 
with  His  disciples."  We  cannot,  therefore,  suppose  that  He  would 
engage  in  any  public  labors  which  would  draw  to  Him  the  atten- 
tion of  His  enemies ;  rather  He  would  devote  Himself  to  the  instruc- 
tion of  those  with  Him  —  perhaps  the  Apostles  only.  As  we  do  not 
know  how  soon  after  the  Feast  of  Dedication  the  Lord  went  to 
Bethany  to  raise  Lazarus,  nor  how  soon  after  that  resurrection  He  went 
to  Ephraim,  so  we  do  not  know  how  long  was  His  sojourn  there. 
The  impression  made  by  the  narrative  is  that  He  left  Ephraim  only  a 
short  time  before  the  Passover  (verse  55) :  "Now  the  feast  of  the 
Passover  was  nigh  at  hand."  This  may  mean  that  the  feast  was 
nigh  at  hand  when  Jesus  went  to  Ephraim,  or  that  He  left  Ephraim 
wlien  it  was  nigh;  but  in  either  case  it  allows  no  time  for  a  journey 
to  Galilee,  and  for  all  the  events  which  })reccded  His  final  departure 
from  that  province. 

We  thus  seem  to  have  sufficient  grounds  to  reject  the  order  ad- 
vocated by  Greswell,  Sepp,  and  Caspari.  The  first  of  these  puts  the 
resurrection  of  Lazarus  in  December,  very  soon  after  the  Feast  of 
Dedication,  the  flight  to  Ephraim  the  last  of  December,  the  sojourn 
there  a  montli,  or  to  the  end  of  January,  and  tlien  a  departure  to 
Galilee.  (So  in  substance  Sepp  and  Caspari.)  But  if  the  Lord  went 
to  Galilee  at  the  end  of  January,  and  was  for  some  weeks  active  there, 
and  sent  the  Seventy  from  Capernaum ;  how  could  those  who  went 
up  from  Galilee  to  the  Passover  have  been  ignorant  of  His  work  there, 
and  of  the  sending  of  the  Seventy,  and  that  He  was  already  following 
them  on  His  way  to  Jerusalem  —  to  say  nothing  of  the  ignorance  of 
the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees  ?     (John  xi.  55-57.) 

There  is  still  another  objection  to  this  order.  If  the  words  of 
Luke  (ix.  51):  "He  steadfastly  set  His  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem,"  are 
applied,  as  by  Greswell,  to  His  departure  from  Ephraim,  and  Ephraim 
was  in  Judnea  on  its  northern  border,  the  first  stage  of  His  journey 
was  not  southward  to  Jerusalem,  but  northward  to  Galilee.  But  if 
going  from  Jerusalem  and  not  to  it,  why  did  the  Samaritans  refuse  to 
receive  Him  ?  Greswell  gives  the  very  insufficient  answer,  that  they 
knew,  indeed,  that  He  was  journeying  toward  Galilee,  but  knew  also 
that  He  was  "  to  commence  a  public  tour  from  there  "  back  to  Jerusa 
lem.  But  the  statement  is  perfectly  plain  that  they  refused  to  receive 
Him  because  He  was  going  up  to  Jerusalem.  And  how  did  they 
know  what  His  intentions  were  as  to  His  return  ? 


1  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.  read  ivToXas,  "  commandments,"  perhaps  orders  sent  to  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  land.    See  M.  and  M.,  in  loco. 


Part  VI.]      THE  LAST  JOURNEY   TO  JERUSALEM.  370 

We  must  reject,  then,  the  arrangement  which  denies  any  return  to 
Galilee  after  Tabernacles;  and  of  those  which  affirm  such  a  return 
either  after  Tabernacles  and  before  Dedication,  or  after  Dedication, 
or  after  the  sojourn  in  Ephraim,  we  accept  the  first  as  most  probable, 
and  put  the  final  departure  from  Galilee  a  few  days  before  the  Feast 
of  Dedication. 

THE  LAST  JOURNEY. 

Let  us  now  note  the  general  features  of  this  last  journey  —  its 
starting  point  and  goal,  its  continuity,  by  whom  the  Lord  was  at- 
tended, the  mission  of  the  Seventy,  the  crowds  that  gathered  to  Him, 
the  opposition  of  His  enemies,  and  the  character  of  his  teachings. 

Its  starting  point  and  goal. — It  is  generally  admitted  that  the  start- 
ing point  was  Capernaum;  the  goal  was  Jerusalem.  Two  ways  were 
open  to  Him :  through  Samaria,  or  along  the  Jordan  valley ;  and  He 
took  the  former.  To  reach  Samaria  from  Capernaum,  He  must  pass 
through  lower  Galilee  on  its  eastern  side.  The  Samaritan  village 
which  refused  to  receive  His  messengers  was  probably  one  on  the 
frontier;  the  ground  of  rejection  being  that  His  face  was  as  though 
He  would  go  to  Jerusalem.  Whither  did  He  then  turn  ?  We  are 
told  simply  that  "they  went  to  another  village."  Was  this  village 
in  Samaria  or  Galilee  ? '  Assuming  that  it  was  in  Galilee,  what  was 
the  Lord's  further  course  ?  Certainly  He  did  not  turn  back  to  Gali- 
lee, but  kept  on  His  course,  either  southward  into  Samaria,  or  east- 
ward along  the  border  line  of  the  two  provinces,  so  crossing  the  Jor- 
dan into  Perasa;  from  whence  when  the  time  came.  He  might  go  up 
to  Jerusalem. 

Its  continuity. — Was  this  last  journey  continuous  ?  By  this  is  not 
meant  that  He  went  forward  every  day  nearer  and  nearer  to  Jeru- 
salem; but  that,  having  ended  His  work  in  Galilee,  and  Jerusalem 
being  the  goal  of  His  journey,  all  His  steps  were  determined  by  this 
chief  end.  It  is  true  that  in  Luke  we  find  few  data  as  to  times  or 
places.  The  first  local  notice  is  that  of  "a  certain  village"  (x.  38), 
where  He  visits  Martha;  then  we  read  of  His  being  in  "a  certain 
place "  where  He  gave  the  disciples  a  form  of  prayer  (xi.  1).  Still 
later  we  have  the  general  statement  that  "  He  went  through  the  cities 
and  villages,  teaching,  and  journeying  towards  Jerusalem  "  (xiii.  32) ; 
and  the  more  particular  one,  "and  it  came  to  pass  as  He  came  to 
Jerusalem  that  He  passed  through  the  midst  of  Samaria  and  Galilee  " 
(xvii.  11).     A  little  before  His  arrival  at  Jericho  "  He  took  unto  Him 


L 


1  Most  commentators  say  in  Galilee:  Meyer,  Godet,  Edersheim;  cantra,  Bleek;  un- 
decided, Keil;  this  point  will  be  further  spoken  of  when  considering  the  mission  of  the 
Seventy. 


380  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI. 

the  twelve,  and  sivid  unto  them :  *  Behold  we  go  up  to  Jerusalem ' " 
(xviii.  31).  Another  note  of  place  is  given  in  the  words  of  the  Phari- 
sees: "  Get  thee  out,  and  depart  hence"  (xiii.  31),  sliowing  that  He 
must  have  been  at  that  time  in  Herod's  dominions,  in  Galilee  or 
Peraea.  But  although  we  have  so  few  data  of  time  or  place,  yet 
all  these  statements  agree  in  this,  that  the  Lord,  enlightened  by  the 
Father,  and  knowing  that  His  decease  should  be  accomplished  at 
Jerusalem,  and  during  the  Passover,  so  directed  His  steps  that  He 
might  fullill  His  Father's  will. 

We  must,  then,  regard  this  last  journey  as  a  continuous  one,  with  a 
definite  purpose  and  a  progressive  movement  beginning  in  Galilee  and 
ending  in  -Jerusalem.  Thus  it  is  said  by  Meyer:  "It  is  to  be  con- 
ceived of  as  a  slow  circuit  whose  final  goal  is  .Jerusalem." 

Tlie  Lord's  attendants. — By  whom  was  the  Lord  attended  on  this 
journey  ?  Certainly  by  the  Apostles,  and  perhaj^s  by  the  other  dis- 
ciples. It  is  said  by  Godet  that  "Jesus  carried  with  Him  to  Judaja 
all  the  following  of  devoted  believers  which  He  had  found  in  Gali- 
lee " ;  but  this  is  too  broad.  "Was  He  also  attended  by  the  women 
spoken  of  by  Matthew  (xxvii.  51),  "  which  followed  Him  from 
Galilee,  ministering  unto  Him"?  This  is  questioned  by  Edersheim 
(ii.  327),  who  affirms,  that  "any  lengthened  journeying,  and  for  an 
indefinite  purpose,  would  have  been  quite  contrary  to  Jewish  man- 
ners " ;  and  he  suggests  that  their  accompanying  Him  was  not  till 
He  left  Ephraim,  and  went  to  Galilee  to  meet  the  festal  bands  going 
up  to  the  Paschal  Feast.  But  the  words  of  Luke  (viii.  2,  3),  and  of 
Mark  (xv.  41),  speaking  of  the  women,  who,  when  He  was  in  Galilee, 
followed  Him  and  nunistered  unto  Him,  serve  to  show  that  they  were 
with  Him  at  other  times  than  in  journeys  to  the  feasts.  And  some  of 
the  women  were  doubtless  the  wives  or  mothers  of  the  apostles  or 
disciples  (1  Cor.  ix.  5).  It  is  not,  then,  improbable  that  His  mother 
and  other  female  relatives,  and  female  relatives  of  the  disciples,  and 
probably  some  of  those  whom  He  had  healed,  as  Mary  Magdalene, 
went  with  Him  when  He  finally  left  Galilee. 

The  sending  of  the  Seventy. —  But  the  sending  of  the  Seventy 
before  Him  is,  as  has  been  said,  the  most  marked  feature  of  this  last 
journey.  "After  these  things  the  Lord  appointed  other  Seventy  also, 
and  sent  them  two  and  two  before  His  face  into  every  city  and  place 
whither  He  Himself  would  come"  (Luke  x.  1).  What  was  His  pur- 
pose in  sending  them  before  Him?  When  and  from  what  place  did 
He  send  them?  Where  did  they  fulfill  their  mission?  And  when 
and  where  did  they  return  to  Him  ? 

Their  commission.  —  The  end  for  which  they  were  sent  forth  was, 
as  expressed  in  their  commission  (verse  9),  to  proclaim  "The  king- 


Part  VI.]  MISSION   OF   THE   SEVENTY.  381 

dom  of  God  is  come  nigh,  unto  you  " ;  and  as  an  evidence  of  this,  to 
heal  the  sick  in  such  cities  as  should  receive  them.  What  was  the 
significance  of  this  proclamation  ?  Was  it  merely  the  repetition  of 
VFhat  had  been  preached  by  the  Baptist,  by  the  Lord,  and  by  the 
apostles:  "The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand"  ?  Did  it  not,  rather, 
derive  a  peculiar  character  from  the  relation  in  which  the  mission  of 
the  Seventy  stood  to  His  last  journey  ?  The  apostles  had  earlier  been 
sent  "to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel"  without  distinction 
(Matthew  x.  6) ;  but  these  were  directed  to  go  only  to  those  "  cities 
and  places  whither  He  Himself  would  come."  The  Seventy  were  to 
go  before  Him  as  His  lieralds  or  forerunners;  and  it  seems  clear  that 
they  did  not  merely  announce  in  general  terms  that  the  kingdom  of 
God  was  at  hand,  but  made  a  specific  mention  of  Jesus  who  was  to 
follow  them  as  the  King.  They  were  to  give  notice  that  the  Mes- 
siah was  coming,  and  that  in  those  places  only  which  He  had  chosen. 
What  determined  the  Lord's  choice  of  those  cities  and  places  we  are 
not  told,  but  we  may  believe  that  He  went  only  to  those  where  His 
heralds  found  reception.  "  The  Twelve  apostles  were  sent  to  declare 
the  coming  of  the  kingdom,  these  the  coming  of  the  King."  (Light- 
foot,  in  loco.)  Jesus  was  soon  to  follow  them  on  His  way  to  the  Holy 
City;  and  thus  the  eyes  of  all  who  heard  them  were  turned  to  Him, 
not  as  a  great  Rabbi  or  Teacher,  or  as  a  Prophet,  but  as  the  long- 
promised  Son  of  David  and  Redeemer  of  Israel. 

Time  and  jilace  of  their  sending. —  Such  being  the  purpose  of  the 
mission,  when  and  from  what  place  were  the  Seventy  sent?  The  time 
of  their  sending  depends  upon  the  time  of  the  final  dejiarture  from 
Galilee,  for  all  agree  that  it  was  a  little  before  or  after  that  departure 
that  the  Lord  sent  them.  The  place  from  which  they  were  sent, 
whether  from  Galilee,  or  from  some  point  on  the  way  to  Jerusalem, 
or  from  the  city  itself,  is  clearly  connected  with  the  time.  We  mav 
give  the  following  classification  of  opinions:  1.  From  Capernaum, 
and  before  going  up  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  Robinson,  New- 
come,  Pound.  2.  After  the  departure  from  Galilee,  and  on  the  way 
to  Tabernacles.  Lightfoot,  Wieseler,  Friedlieb,  Gardiner,  Eders- 
heim.  3.  In  the  interval  between  Tabernacles  and  Dedication,  (a.) 
From  Jerusalem,  Krafit;  (b.)  from  Judfea,  EUicott;  (c.)  from  Galilee, 
Caspari,  Farrar,  Neander,  Pressense;  (d.)  from  Persia,  Bengel.  4. 
After  sojourn  at  Ephraim,  and  from  Capernaum,  Greswell.' 

Whither  sent. —  Whitlier  were  the  Seventy  sent  ?  It  may  be  said 
that  they  were  to  precede  Him  all  the  way  to  Jerusalem,  and  there- 


1  McClellan  (453  ff."),  who  puts  the  sending  of  the  Seventy  soon  nfter  the  sending  of 
the  Twelve  (Luke  ix.  1),  and  brings  it  into  no  relation  with  the  last  journey,  thinks  tho 
field  of  their  mission  to  have  been  Galilee;  so,  apparently,  Calvin. 


382  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI. 

fore  would  fulfill  their  mission  in  each  province  through  which  He 
passed  till  He  reached  the  citj'.  We  may  accept  this,  and  yet  ask 
after  the  more  special  field  of  their  activity.  Was  it  Galilee?"  It 
is,  indeed,  not  unlikely,  if  we  suppose  the  Lord  to  have  sent  them 
from  Capernaum,  that  they  preceded  Him  through  lower  Galilee,  and 
announced  His  coming;  but  there  is  no  mention  of  any  Galilsean 
town  as  now  visited  by  Him.  It  is  most  probable  that  the  woes  on 
the  Galilaean  cities  with  which  their  commission  ends,  were  spoken 
when  He  was  about  to  leave  Galilee ;  but  the  Lord  may  have  added 
them  as  an  example  of  like  judgment  to  come  upon  the  cities  that 
rejected  His  messengers.  It  seems,  therefore,  very  doubtful  whether 
the  Seventy  were  sent  out  till  tKe  Lord  was  leaving,  or  had  finally  left 
Galilee. 

Did  the  Lord  send  them  into  Samaria?  This  is  said  by  some. 
(So  Wieseler,  Lange,  Cook.)  Godet  says:  "He  intended  to  do  a 
work  in  the  north  of  Samaria  like  that  which  had  succeeded  so 
admirably  in  the  south."  It  is  true  that  in  their  commission  they 
were  not  forbidden,  as  were  the  apostles,  to  enter  Samaria;  but  never- 
theless the  nature  of  their  message  makes  it  most  improbable  that 
they  would  proclaim  it  in  the  Samaritan  cities.  (So  Roljinson  and 
most.)  They  were  to  announce  that  the  kingdom  in  the  person  of 
the  King  was  at  hand.  Such  announcement  could  be  made  to  those 
only  who  were  already  familiar  with  the  Jewish  conceptions  of  the 
Messiah,  and  friendly  to  them.  But  the  Messianic  expectations  of  the 
Samaritans  were  not  those  of  the  Jews,  for,  as  they  accepted  the  law 
only  as  Divinely  inspired,  not  the  prophets,  they  knew  nothing  of 
the  promises  made  to  the  Son  of  David. ^  IMor  did  the  welcome  they 
gave  to  the  Lord  in  the  first  stage  of  His  ministry  (John  iv.  39) 
prove  their  willingness  now  to  receive  Him  as  the  Jewish  Messiah.  = 
Besides  this  ignorance  of  the  true  nature  of  His  Messiahship,  He  had 
been  already  rejected  in  Samaria  by  the  rejection  of  His  messengers, 
and  for  the  reason  that  His  face  was  turned  to  Jerusalem.  Meyer 
quotes  Weiss  with  approval:  "Of  any  appointment  of  the  Seventy 
for  Samaria,  or  for  the  heathen  world  at  all,  there  is  not  a  single 
word  said." 

Were  the  Seventy  sent  to  Judtea?     The  commentators,  Maldonatus 


1  Sepp  thinks  that  they  were  sent  before  the  Lord  as  He  journeyed  into  the  regions 
of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  of  the  Decapolis  (Matthew  x\-.  21).  But  we  must  remember  that 
the  Lord's  work  in  Galilee  was  at  this  time  finished,  and  He  was  about  to  leave  it,  and 
that  the  Seventy  were  not  sent  to  the  heathen. 

-  Hamburger,  ii.  1,063;  Lightfoot,  on  John  iv.  25. 

3  The  reading  of  the  A.  V.:  "  We  know  that  this  is  indeed  the  Christ,  the  Saviour 
of  the  world,"  in  the  R.  V.  is,  "We  know  that  tliis  is  indeed  the  Saviour  of  the 
world."    John  iv.  43.     (So  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.) 


Part   VI.]  MISSION   OF   THE   SEVENTY.  383 

and  a  Lapide,  make  Judaea  the  place  of  their  labors,  as  Galilee  had 
been  that  of  the  Apostles.  (With  them  agree  EUicott,  Oosterzee,  and 
others.)  Considered  as  a  testimony  to  the  Messianic  claims  of  Jesus, 
their  mission  would  have  found  in  Judaea  —  the  seat  of  the  hierarchy 
—  its  most  fitting  field;  but  the  Lord  had  been  compelled  to  leave 
that  province  long  before  because  the  ecclesiastical  rulers  sought  to 
kill  Him  (John  vii.  1),  and  their  hostility  was  shown  anew  at  the 
Feasts  of  Tabernacles  and  Dedication,  It  is  not  likely,  therefore, 
that  He  sent  them  to  cities  where  He  could  not  follow  them  without 
endangering  His  life,  not  to  speak  of  the  improbability  that  they 
would  have  been  allowed  to  deliver  their  message.  And  it  is  not  in- 
timated that  He  visited  any  part  of  Judaea  during  this  last  journey 
except  when  going  to  Bethany  (Luke  x.  38;  John  xi.  1),  or  that  the 
Seventy  went  there ;  but  if  their  mission  was  of  necessity  executed 
elsewhere,  it  was  doubtless  well  known  in  Judaea  and  the  Holy  City, 
and  served  its  purpose  as  a  witness. 

Were  they  sent  to  Peraea?  As  all  are  agreed  that  this  was  the 
chief  region  of  our  Lord's  labors  in  this  last  stage  of  His  ministry,  the 
strong  presumption  is  that  they  would  go  before  Him  there.  And  this 
is  made  certain  by  the  statements  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  which  will 
be  examined  later. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  the  mission  of  the  Seventy  was  chiefly 
fulfilled  in  Peraea,  though  we  cannot  tell  what  parts  of  it  they  visited. 
If  the  Lord ,  after  His  rejection  in  Samaria,  passed  along  its  north  border 
eastward,  and  crossed  the  Jordan  near  Bethshean,  they  may  have 
preceded  Him  into  north  Peraea.  How  far  to  the  northeast  or  south 
they  went  is  mere  conjecture;  there  were  many  large  towns  east  of 
the  Dead  Sea,  some  of  which  they  may  have  visited. 

Their  return. — We  have  still  to  ask,  When  and  to  what  place  did 
the  Seventy  return  ?  In  Luke  (x.  17)  their  return  is  mentioned  in 
immediate  connection  with  their  sending  forth,  but  some  considerable 
interval  must  have  elapsed ;  how  long  was  this  interval  depends  upon 
the  manner  of  their  mission.  Were  they  all  sent  at  once,  and  from 
one  place,  or  two  by  two,  at  diff"erent  times,  and  from  different  places? 
In  the  former  case,  did  the  Lord  wait  in  the  place  from  which  they  were 
sent  till  all  returned  to  Him,  and  then  begin  His  circuit  after  them, 
or  did  He  follow  those  first  sent,  and  then  the  rest,  in  the  order  of 
their  return?  The  last  seems  most  probable.  Meyer  says,  "Some 
must  have  returned  very  soon,  others  later."  We  can  scarce  doubt 
that  the  Lord  made  known  to  them  the  names  of  the  cities  and  places 
He  would  visit  (A.  V. :  "  whither  He  Himself  would  come  " ;  R.  V. : 
"was  about  to  come"),  and  these  in  some  definite  order;  and  it  is 
probable  that  He  would  visit  the  nearest  first,  and  the  more  remote 


384  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI. 

later,  but  always  advancing  towards  Jerusalem.  But  this  ordei 
miglit  be  broken  in  two  ways :  first,  by  the  refusal  of  a  city  to  receive 
the  messengers;  second,  by  the  hostility  of  the  Pharisees  preventing 
Him  from  following  them.  That  ultimately  all  the  Seventy  rejoined 
Him,  we  learn,  but  when  and  where  we  are  not  told.  It  may  have 
been  after  Dedication,  and  at  that  place  Ijeyoud  Jordan  where  He 
abode  (John  x.  40).  After  all  had  returned  to  him,  he  spake  to  them 
the  words  in  Luke  x.  17-24. 

Effect  of  their  mission. —  Such  a  mission  mui^t,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  have  excited  a  very  wide  and  deep  interest  throughout  the  whole 
country,  for  He  was  now  everywhere  well  known,  and  all  knew  the 
goal  of  His  journey.  That  such  interest  was  awakened  is  shown  by 
the  crowds  that  gathered  to  Him  and  accompanied  Him.  Matthew 
says  (xix.  2):  "Great  multitudes  followed  Him."  Mark  says  (x.  1): 
"The  people"  —  dix^ot  —  "multitudes"  —  "resort  unto  Him  again." 
Luke  says  (xi.  29) :  "When  the  people  were  gathered  thick  together." 
Again  (xii.  1) :  "  When  there  were  gathered  together  an  innumerable 
multitude  of  people,  insomuch  that  they  trode  one  upon  another." 
("  The  many  thousands  of  the  multitude,"  R.  V.)  Again  (xiv.  25): 
"And  there  went  great  multitudes  with  Him."  This  language,  per- 
haps, warrants  us  in  saying,  that  at  no  previous  period  of  His  ministry 
had  such  crowds  gathered  to  hear  Him,  or  such  intense  excitement 
prevailed. 

It  is  obvious  that  through  such  concourse  of  the  people  His 
enemies  would  be  even  more  inflamed  against  Him,  and  aroused  to  take 
more  active  measures  to  destroy  Him.  Their  emissaries  would  follow 
Him  from  place  to  place,  and  watch  carefully  all  His  acts  and  words,  to 
find  some  new  grounds  of  accusation  against  Him  as  breaking  the 
law,  or  to  turn  His  teachings  into  ridicule,  and  so  discredit  them. 
How  often  during  this  journey  He  came  into  hostile  contact  with  the 
Pharisees  and  their  allies,  will  be  seen  in  our  examination  of  the  nar- 
ratives. 

Character  of  His  teaching. — ^If  the  object  of  the  Lord  in  send- 
ing the  Seventy  was  to  bring  before  the  people  His  Messianic  claims. 
His  teachings  would  naturally  take  upon  themselves  a  correspond- 
ing character.  And  this  was  the  case,  as  we  shall  by  and  bj^  see. 
That  there  was  a  very  strong  and  general  belief  among  the  people 
that  the  Lord  would  avow  Himself  the  Messiah  when  He  reached 
Jerusalem,  and  there  proclaim  the  Messianic  kingdom,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  (Luke  xix.  11).  A  large  part  of  His  teachings  related, 
directly  or  indirectly,  to  this  kingdom.  But  the  public  mind  was  not 
assured.  While  He  distinctly  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  His  acts 
did  not  at  all  correspond  to  the  popular  expectation.      He  did  not 


Part  VI.]      THE   FINAL  DEPARTURE   FROM  GALILEE.  385 

inflame  men's  hearts  against  the  Roman  yoke,  or  take  any  steps  look 
ing  to  its  overthrow.  He  made  no  overtures  to  the  Pharisees,  and 
what  could  He  do  without  their  heljj  ?  His  words  were  often  very 
mysterious,  and  we  cannot  wonder  that  at  the  Feast  of  Dedication 
the  Jews  should  say  to  Him:  "How  long  dost  Thou  make  us  to 
doubt  ?  If  Thou  be  the  Christ,  tell  us  plainly."  Still  those  who  saw 
,  in  Him  a  possible  Messiah,  though  they  understood  Him  not  —  prob- 
ably a  large  number  —  must  have  had  their  hopes  quickened  and 
strengthened  during  this  last  journey.  And  even  His  apostles, 
though  plainly  told  of  His  approaching  death,  were  so  far  affected 
by  the  popular  excitement  and  under  the  power  of  the  current 
Messianic  beliefs,  that  they  could  not  understand  His  words  about 
His  rejection  and  sufferings,  but  believed  that  as  a  reward  for  their 
fidelity  high  places  would  soou  be  given  them  in  His  kingdom 
(Matt.  xix.  27;  xx.  20). 

November  —  December,  782.     A.  D.  29. 

The  time  when  He  should  be  received  up  approaching, 
the  Lord  sets  His  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem.     He  sends  mes-    Luke  ix.  51-56. 
sengers  before  Him,  who,  entering  into  a  Samaritan  village, 
are   rejected  by  the  inhabitants.     He  reproves  His  angry 
disciples,  James  and  John,  and  departs  to  another  village. 
He  replies  to  one  who  proposes  to  follow  Him.     He  now    Luke  ix.  61,  62. 
sends  out  seventy  of  His  disciples,  to  go  two  and  two  into    Luke  x.  1-24. 
every  city  and  place  where  He  Himself  would  come.     They    Matt.  xi.  20-30. 
depart,  and  return  from  time  to  time  as  they  fulfdl  their    Matt.  xix.  1. 
commission.    Hefollowsin  their  steps,  journeying  through    Mark  x.  1. 
Persea  toward  Jerusalem. 

Having  already  discussed  the  statements  of  the  Evangelists 
respecting  the  Lord's  last  journey,  in  their  general  features,  we . 
have  here  to  deal  only  with  details. 

Some  have  thought  to  find  a  clironological  datum  in  Hia 
words:  ''When  the  time  was  come  that  He  should  be  received 
up  "  — sv  TU)  avn7TX7]povadat  rdc;  iifxh:pag.  If  it  be  read  as  mean- 
ing, "when  the  days  were  entirely  completed,"  the  Passover  at 
which  He  suffered  must  have  been  close  at  hand.  But  the 
words  are  generally  understood  as  meaning  that  the  time  of  His 
passion  was  approaching,  but  not  giving  any  definite  indication 
how  near.'     We  cannot,  therefore,  find  in  this,  a  specific  chron- 


1  So  Norton:  "When  the  time  was  near  for  His  being  received  into  heaven."  Id 
theR.  v.:  "When  the  days  were  well-nigh  come":  in  margin :  "were  being  fulfilled.''' 
In  Bleek,  der  Zeit  war  nahe,  stand  bevor,  kam  heran.  See  Gardiner,  120,  note ;  and 
Godet,  in  loco. 

V 


386  THE   LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI. 

ological  datum.  The  view  of  Wieseler  (Syn.,  324),  that  "  the 
being  received  up  "  —  Trjg  dvaXrjful^euyc;  —  refers  to  His  favorable 
reception  by  the  GaHlseans,  and  that  the  meaning  is,  "When  He 
no  longer  found  Himself  received  in  Galilee,  He  left  that  prov- 
ince and  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  labor  there,"  is  very  arbitrary 
and  finds  little  support.'  The  messengers  sent  before  Him  to 
the  Samaritan  village  are  said  by  some  early  writers  to  have 
been  the  two  Apostles,  James  and  John,  but  without  authority, 
traditional  or  otherwise.  The  village  where  He  was  rejected  is 
thought  by  many  to  be  the  present  Ginnea  or  Jenin,  situated 
upon  the  north  border  of  Samaria,  and  overlooking  the  plain  of 
Esdraelon.  It  is  mentioned  by  Josephus  (Antiq.,  xx.  6.  1)  as  the 
place  where  some  pilgrims  at  a  later  period,  going  up  to  the 
feast,  were  attacked  and  killed.  It  is  probable  that  the  road 
from  Nazareth  to  Jerusalem  always  passed  this  way  (Baed.,  343), 
and  as  a  frontier  town  it  might  have  been  the  first  reached  by 
the  Lord.^ 

It  is  not  certain  that  the  Lord  passed  out  of  Galilee  into 
Samaria  at  all.  Very  probably  He  waited  on  the  border  till  the 
return  of  His  messengers.  The  "  other  village  "  to  which  they 
went  was  not  in  Samaria.     (So  Meyer.) 

The  intentions  to  follow  the  Lord  expressed  by  the  three 
men  (Luke  ix.  57-62),  suit  very  well  this  beginning  of  the  last 
journey,  but  Matthew  mentions  the  like  intentions  of  two  men 
just  before  the  journey  to  Gergesa  (viii.  19-22).  As  it  is  im- 
probable that  the  Lord  would  have  repeated  the  same  words  on 
two  such  occasions,  many  say  that  Luke  inserts  verses  57-60  out 
of  the  chronological  order.^  Matthew  certainly  gives  the  inci- 
dents a  more  definite  setting,  but  it  is  pi'obable  that  the  man 
mentioned  in  verses  61,  62,  met  the  Loi-d  on  this  last  journey. 
That  the  three  here  spoken  of  were  Judas  Iscariot,  and  Thomas, 
and  Matthew  (Lange),  or  that  one  of  them  was  Philii")  (Godet), 
are  merely  traditional  conjectures. 


1  See  his  Beitrage,  130;  contra,  Meyer  and  Bleek,  in  loco,  and  Edersheim,  vol.  ii.  128. 

2  SoLicht.,  Farrar,  and  many  others.  Maldonatus  thinks  the  village  to  ha\e  been 
Samaria,  the  capital,  but  this  is  too  far  from  the  border,  and  was  a  city  while  this  is  called 
a  village. 

^  So  Meyer,  Bleek,  Lange,  Licht..  Rob.;  contra.  Tisch.,  Neander,  Gardiner,  Fuller, 
and,  in  substance,  Godet.  In  favor  of  Luke's  order  it  may  be  said  that  the  Lord's 
words  :  "The Son  of  man  has  not  where  to  lay  His  head,"  better  apply  to  this  journey 
than  to  His  residence  in  Galilee. 


Part  VI.]      THE  FINAL  DEPARTURE   FROM   GALILEE.         387 

That  the  number  of  the  Seventy  was  not  an  arbitrary  one 
but  had  some  significance,  is  apparent.  Some  think  it  to  corre- 
spond to  the  ''seventy  elders  "  (Numbers  xi.  16);  and  others  find 
an  allusion  to  the  later  Sanhedrin ;  Godet  supposes  that  the  Lord 
may  have  constituted  an  anti-Sanhedrin,  as  in  the  twelve  apos- 
tles he  finds  new  spiritual  patriarchs  set  over  against  the  twelve 
sons  of  Jacob.  This  is  fanciful.  Others  find  in  the  number  a 
reference  to  the  belief  that  there  were  seventy  heathen  nations 
(Gen  X.  32),  and  see  in  the  mission  now  set  forth  a  foreshadow- 
ing of  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  to  all  nations.'  That  there  is 
some  prophetic  reference  in  the  mission  of  the  Seventy  to  a 
preaching  of  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  before  the  Lord's  return 
in  glory,  is  probable;  but  analogy  leads  us  to  refer  it  to  those  in 
covenant,  rather  than  to  the  heathen.  (Winer,  i.  569;  Licht., 
327.) 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  various  opinions  respecting 
the  time  when,  and  the  place  whence,  the  Seventy  were  sent. 
If  we  accept  Luke  as  here  following  the  order  of  events,  this 
sending  was  after  the  rejection  in  Samaria.  If  He  then  jour- 
neyed along  the  border  eastward,  He  may  have  chosen  and  sent 
them  before  He  reached  the  Jordan  valley,  or  soon  after  He  en- 
tered Persea.  We  know,  at  least,  that  the  chief  region  of  their 
mission  was  beyond  Jordan,  and  it  will  be  in  place  here  briefly 
to  describe  this  region. 

PROVINCE  OF  PER^A. 
Peraea  is  mentioned  in  tlie  gospels  (Matt.  iv.  25)  under  the  term 
"beyond  Jordan"  —  iripav  rov  'lopMvov\  in  Mark  x.  1,  translated 
"The  farther  side  of  Jordan."  But  there  is  here  question  as  to  the 
text.  Mark  (x.  1)  says:  "He  arose  from  thence,  and  cometh  into  the 
coasts  of  Judaea  by  the  further  side  of  Jordan."  In  R.  V. :  He  cometh 
into  the  borders  of  Judaea  and  beyond  Jordan.  (So  Tisch.,  W.  and 
H.)  Is  "beyond  Jordan"  to  be  taken  as  the  name  of  Pertiea,  as  in 
iii.  8  ?  In  this  case  the  Lord  would  have  gone  from  Galilee  to 
JudiEa,  and  thence  over  the  Jordan.  But  it  may  be  understood,  He 
cometh  to  Judaea  by  way  of  beyond  Jordan,  or  by  Peraea  (so  Meyer, 
Keil,  and  most).     But  there  is  another  interpretation  of  the  words. 


'  So  Bleek,  Wieseler,  and  many;  contra,  Meyer,  who  denies  any  reference  to  the 
Gentile  nations.  As  to  the  Jewish  offering  of  the  seventy  bullocks  at  the  Feast  of  Tab- 
ernacles, accordint^  to  the  number  of  the  nations,  see  Lightfoot  on  John  vii.  37. 


388  THE   LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI 

It  is  said  by  Caspari  (89)  that  the  district  mentioued  in  Joshua  xix. 
34,  "  Judah  at  Jordau",  is  to  be  identified  with  the  ancient  Ganlan- 
itis  or  modern  Jolau,  and  was  north  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  (For  earlier 
discussion  see  Reland,  33;  later,  see  Riehm,  789.)  Thomson  (ii.  391) 
finds  a  place  on  the  easternmost  branch  of  the  Jordan,  now  called  Seid 
Yehudah,  which  he  thinks  to  have  been  in  Judaea  beyond  Jordan. 
It  is  to  this  district,  not  to  Persea,  that  Casjiari  supposes  Matthew 
and  Mark  to  refer. 

The  west  border  of  Pertea  was  the  Jordan;  on  the  east  its  border 
was  undefined;*  on  the  north  it  extended  to  the  Jarmuk;  on  the 
south,  to  the  Aruon,  a  length  of  some  sixty  miles.  Its  capital, 
according  to  Josephus,  was  Gadara  (War,  iv.  7.  3).  It  is  distin- 
guished by  Matthew  (iv.  25)  from  the  Decapolis.  It  was  a  part 
of  the  territory  of  Herod  Antipas,  and  Machaerus,  where  John  was 
imprisoned,  was  in  the  southern  part  of  it.  Josephus  speaks  of  it 
as  larger  than  Galilee,  but  not  so  fertile.  Modern  travellers,  however, 
speak  of  the  great  richness  of  the  soil,  especially  in  the  central  part 
known  as  Gilead.  Tristram  (B.  P.  335)  says:  "None  can  fairly  judge 
of  Israel's  heritage  who  has  not  seen  the  luxuriance  of  Gilead.  To 
compare  Judsea  with  it  is  to  contrast  nakedness  and  luxuriance."* 
That  it  was  filled  in  the  Lord's  day  with  cities  and  villages  is  certain, 
though  none  are  mentioned  by  name  in  the  Gospels,  and  many  ruined 
places  are  still  to  be  seen  on  the  east  bank  of  the  Jordan.  The  popu- 
lation was  not  purely  Jewish,  but  rather  a  mixed  one;  not  so  largely 
heathen  as  in  the  Decapolis,  and  not  likely  to  be  so  easily  stirred  up 
against  the  Lord  as  the  inhabitants  of  Judsea,  or  even  of  Galilee.* 
It,  therefore,  presented,  in  some  respects,  a  better  field  for  His  pres- 
ent activity,  though  we  can  hardly  agree  with  Pressense,  that  "  it 
offered  to  Him  the  quiet  retreat  which  He  could  no  longer  find  in 
Galilee."  As  the  population  was  in  some  degree  a  mixed  one,  the 
Lord  would  find  less  of  bigoted  opposition  than  in  Judsea  or  even 
than  in  Galilee,  while  it  was  so  near  these  provinces  that  information 
of  all  His  movements  would  soon  be  known  in  them.  We  may  infer 
that  the  spirit  of  the  people  in  general  was  friendly,  since  many  came 
to  hear  Him,  remembering  John's  words  respecting  Him;  "And 
many  believed  on  Ilim  there." 

The  central  point  of  the  Lord's  activity  after  the  Feast  of  Dedi- 


1  According  to  Josephus,  War,  iii.  3.  3,  it  reached  to  Arabia,  Gerasa,  and  Phila- 
delphia. 

2  See  also  Oliphant's  "  Land  of  Oilead." 

■''  See  Neubaiier,  page  241,  who  (luotes  the  Rabbins  that  Judsea  was  the  wheat.  Gal 
ilee,  chaff,  Persea,  tares;  and  adds  that  there  were  many  long  discussions  whether  the 
trans-Jordanic  region  enjoyed  all  the  religion*  privileges  belonging  to  Judwa  and  Galilee. 


Part  VI.]  JESUS  JOURNEYS   IN  PER^A.  389 

cation  was  at  "the  place  where  John  at  first  baptized."  It  is  said 
"that  there  He  abode — e/j-eivev  —  and  many  resorted  unto  Him" 
(John  X.  40,  41).  This  did  not  hinder  Him  from  going  from  place 
to  place  following  the  Seventj',  but  we  may  infer  that  the  zeal  of  His 
enemies  hampered  in  some  degree  the  freedom  of  His  movements. 
So  far  as  we  know,  the  place  where  John  at  first  baptized  was  Beth- 
abara,  the  site  of  which  has  already  been  discussed.  If  we  place  it  a 
liille  uorlheast  of  Jericho,  it  would  have  given  a  central  and  conven- 
ient point  from  which  to  visit  the  various  towns  in  the  province.  If 
He  came  hither  from  Galilee,  crossing  the  Jordan  at  Bethshean,  or 
some  ford  higher  up,  and  descended  the  river,  there  were  many 
places  He  might  have  visited  in  northern  Persea,  following  the 
Seventy,  before  He  reached  Bethabara.  But  it  is  idle  to  attempt  to 
mark  out  their  route,  and  to  inquire  to  what  cities  they  may  have 
gone. 

November — December,   782.     A.  D.   29. 

During  the  journey  through  Peraea,  the  liOrd  is  attended    Matt.  xix.  2. 
by  great  multitudes,  whom  He  teaches  and  heals.     Upon    Mark  x.  1. 
the  way  He  is  tempted  by  a  lawyer,  who  asks  Him  how    Luke  x.  25-37. 
he   shall  inherit    eternal  life.      In  reply,   He  relates  the 
parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan.     One  of  His  disciples  asks    Luke  xi.  1-13. 
ior  a  form  of  prayer.     He  gives  Him  the  form,  and  adds 
some  remarks  ou  the  right  method  of  prayer. 

The  Lord  was  now  entering  upon  a  field  of  labor  almost  new, 
and  yet  prophetically  foretold  —  rcepav  rov  ^JopSdvov,  "beyond 
Jordan"  (Isaiah  ix.  1,  2).  Four  districts  are  spoken  of  by  the 
prophet:  1.  Zebulon,  Lower  Galilee;  2.  Naplitali,  Upper  Galilee 
(these  are  more  particularly  designated  by  the  words  following 
—  "  way  of  the  sea,"  or  "seawards  ");  3.  Beyond  Jordan,  Peraea; 
4.  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles,  the  northern  border  of  Galilee 
adjacent  to  the  Gentile  provinces.  (See  Meyer  and  Keil,  in  loco.) 
Comparatively  few  in  Peraea,  we  may  believe,  had  seen  or  heard 
Him ;  and  the  announcement  of  the  Seventy  that  He  was  about 
to  follow  them,  would  naturally  call  general  attention  to  His 
movements,  and  gather  great  crowds  around  Him.  It  is  ap- 
parent, also,  that  the  peculiar  character  of  this  journey  gave 
new  impulse  to  the  prevalent  Messianic  expectations.  It  is 
mentioned  by  Matthew  (xix.  2)  in  general  terms,  that  He  healed, 
but  no  specific  cases  are  given.     l^Iark  speaks  only  of  teaching. 

We   have  no  data  to  determine  when  the   inquiry   of  the 


390  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  Vt 

lawyer  was  made.  It  may  have  been  early  in  the  journey, 
while  the  Lord  was  yet  on  the  border  of  Samaria;  and  His  reply 
derives  a  special  significance  from  the  fact  that  He  Himself  had 
just  been  rejected  by  the  Samaritans;  or  it  may  have  been  a 
little  later,  when  He  was  on  His  way  to  the  Feast  of  Dedication, 
and  was  near  Jericho.  Still,  the  bitter  hostility  of  the  Jews 
to  the  Samaritans  would  have  given  point  to  the  parable, 
wherever  He  may  have  been. 

Luke  (xi.  1)  introduces  the  request  for  a  form  of  prayer, 
with  the  remark,  that  "  as  He  was  praying  in  a  certain  place, 
when  He  ceased,  one  of  His  disciples  said  unto  Him,"  etc.  From 
this  it  has  been  inferred  by  some  (as  Oosterzee  and  Godet)  that 
the  incident  stands  here  in  its  historical  connection,  and  is  in- 
serted by  Matthew  out  of  its  place  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
(vi.  9-13);  and  they  find  in  its  brevity  proof  that  it  was  spoken 
as  given  by  Luke.  It  certainly  appears  more  probable  that  it 
should  be  given  in  answer  to  a  disciple  than  spoken  to  the 
multitude;  and  if  it  had  been  spoken  on  that  occasion,  it  might 
have  simply  been  referred  to  here.  Still,  many  make  it  to  have 
been  original  in  Matthew,  and  repeated  here;  and  others,  as 
Alford,  that  it  stands  in  close  connection  with  what  goes  before 
in  both  Evangelists.  Th cluck  takes  the  distinction,  that  in  the 
first  instance  it  was  generally  given,  but  in  the  latter  as  a  specific 
form.  The  difference  of  expression  in  the  two  cases  is  explained 
by  the  fact  that  Luke  gives  here,  as  often,  a  less  complete  report 
of  Christ's  words.     (See  Keil,  in  ioco.) 

November  —  December,  782.      A.  D.  29. 

The  Lord  heals  a  dumb  possessed  man.     The  Pharisees    Luke  xi.  14-2S. 
accuse  Him  of  casting  out  the  devils  through  Beelzebub. 
He  replies  to  them,  and  while  He  is  speaking  a  woman  in 
the  crowd  blesses  Him.     He  continues  to  discourse  to  the    Luke  xi.  27-36. 
multitude  on  the  desire  for  signs.     He  dines  with  a  Phari- 
see, and  sharply  rebukes  Pharisaical  hypocrisy.     The  Phari-    Luke  xi.  37-54. 
sees  are  greatly  enraged,  a  great  crowd  gathers,  and.  He    Luke  xii.  1-12. 
proceeds  to  address  the  disciples,  admonishing  them  to  be- 
ware of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  and  to  fear  God  only.     Luke  xii.  13-22. 
One  of  those  present  desires  of  Him  that  He  will   make 
his  brother  divide  the  inheritance  with  him.     He  denies  his 
request,  and  speaks  the  parable  of  the  rich  fool.     He  ad-    Luke  xii.  22-53. 


Part  VI.]  JESUS   DINES  WITH  A  PHARISEE.  391 

monishes  the  disciples  to  watch  for  the  coming  of  the  Son 

of  Man,  and,  after  answering  a  question  of  Peter,  proceeds    Luke  xii.  54-59. 

to  address  the  people  respecting  their  inability  to  discern 

the  signs  of  the  times. 

The  relation  of  this  miracle  of  the  dumb  possessed  and  of 
the  discourse  following  it,  to  the  healing  mentioned  by  Matthew 
(xii.  22),  and  the  discourse  there  given,  has  been  already  dis- 
cussed (p.  287).  Most  agree  that  Luke  has  placed  them  here 
out  of  their  historical  connections.*  Tischendorf  identifies  this 
healing  with  the  miracle  in  Matt.  ix.  32-34,  but  regards  it 
rightly  placed  here.  Greswell  strongly  insists  that  this  account 
is  wholly  distinct  from  those  in  Matthew  and  Mark.  It  being 
impossible  to  come  to  any  certain  result,  and  as  it  is  at  least  pos- 
sible that  Matthew  relates  another  case  of  healing  and  another 
discourse,  we  will  follow  Luke's  order.  (See  Godet  and  Keil, 
in  loco.)  In  regard  to  the  rebukes  of  the  Pharisees  by  the  Lord, 
spoken  at  the  house  of  a  Pharisee  (verses  37-52),  we  cite  the 
just  observation  of  Alford,  that  He  "  spoke  at  this  meal  parts  of 
that  discourse  with  which  He  afterward  solemnly  closed  His 
pub  he  ministry." 

That  Jesus  should  have  been  invited  by  a  Pharisee  to  dine 
with  him,  or  rather  to  breakfast  with  him,  when  the  sect  in 
general  was  so  hostile  to  Him,  may  have  been  owing  to  the 
desire  to  have  one  so  famous  for  a  guest,  or  perhaps  to  a  true 
impulse  of  hospitality;  but  more  probably  with  evil  intention, 
hoping  to  entrap  Him.  This  better  agrees  with  the  seeming 
abruptness  and  sharpness  of  the  Lord's  words.  (See,  however, 
contra^  Edersheim,  ii.  205,  and  his  observations  upon  the  Jewish 
rules  of  etiquette  at  table.)  The  severity  of  His  language  seems 
directed  rather  against  Pharisaism  than  against  the  individuals 
then  present,  except  so  far  as  their  consciences  should  compel  a 
self -application.  The  sins  are  rebuked  which  were  characteristic 
of  that  party.  The  lawyer  (xi.  45)  makes  a  distinction  between 
his  class  and  the  Pharisees  in  general,  as  if  the  former  were  a 
kind  of  higher  order,  a  learned  aristocracy.  That  the  Lord 
touched  his  hearers  to  the  quick  is  apparent  from  their  vehe- 
ment attempts  to  entangle  Him  by  their  questions. 


1  So  Eobinson,  Alford,  Lichteusteiii. 


392  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR   LORD.  [Part  VI. 

It  is  said  by  Godet  that  verses  53,  54  describe  "a  scene  of 
violence  probably  unique  in  the  life  of  Jesus."  If  we  suppose  the 
Pharisee  to  have  resided  in  some  city  which  had  been  visited  by 
two  of  the  Seventy,  and  in  which  were  many  Pharisees  and 
sci'ibes,  who  had  been  excited  by  their  message,  and  perhaps 
had  gathered  their  adherents  from  the  neighboring  towns,  we 
may  better  understand  the  narrative.  The  '-innumerable 
multitude"  (R.  V.:  "The  many  thousands  of  the  multitude  "), 
composed  in  part  of  the  citizens,  and  in  part  of  the  crowds  that 
were  following  Him,  so  many  that  in  their  eagerness  "they  trode 
one  upon  another,"  seems  to  have  been  much  like  a  modern  mob. 
That  the  feeling  in  general  was  hostile  to  the  Lord  may  be  in- 
ferred from  His  words  addressed  to  His  friends  (xii.  4):  ''Be 
not  afraid  of  them  that  kill  the  body." 

In  regard  to  the  discourses  found  in  this  chapter  (Luke  xii.), 
it  is  impossible  to  say  whether  they  have  their  right  place  here 
or  in  Matthew,  or  whether  the  Lord  may  not  have  repeated 
them.  A  considerable  part  is  found  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  as  given  by  Matthew  (vi.  25  ff.);  and  another  part  in  the 
last  discourse  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  (xxiv.  42  ff.);  and  still 
another  in  the  commission  given  to  the  Twelve  (x.  34  ff.);  and 
smaller  portions  elsewhere.  As  Matthew  brings  together  in  his 
report  of  the  discourse  much  that  was  beyond  doubt  spoken  at 
other  times,  we  are  inclined  to  believe  that  Luke  here  in  the  main 
follows  the  order  of  events.     (See  Oosterzee,  m  loco;  also  Alford.) 

"We  may  ask  here  in  what  way  the  disciples  understood  the 
Lord's  instructions  to  watch  for  His  return  (verses  35-40).  He 
had  spoken  to  them  after  His  transfiguration  of  His  death  and 
resurrection,  and  of  His  coming  in  glory  (Matt.  xvi.  21-27). 
And  at  Jerusalem  (John  vii.  33,  34)  He  had  spoken  of  a  going 
away  :  "  I  go  unto  Him  that  sent  me;  ye  shall  seek  me,  and  not 
find  me."  But  neither  the  disciples  nor  the  Jews  understood 
what  this  departure  was  (Luke  xviii.  34;  John  viii.  22),  nor  did 
they  connect  His  return  with  the  resurrection.  Probably  the 
Jewish  belief,  though  very  vaguely  held,  that  the  Messiah  w^ould 
come,  and  then  be  hidden  for  a  time,  and  then  reappear  as  King, 
may  have  helped  to  explain  His  words;  and  perhaps  also  His 
appearance  on  the   Mount   of   Transfiguration,  showing  that  a 


Part   VI.]        JESUS   HEALS   AN   INFIRM  WOMAN.  393 

change  was  to  pass  upon  Him  before  He  entered  upon  His  king- 
dom, may  have  been  understood  by  the  three  apostles  present 
as  pointing  to  a  departure  and  return.  But  evidently  if  the 
disciples  looked  forward  to  any  separation  from  Him,  it  was 
only  for  the  briefest  period.  It  is  not  probable  that  His  words 
now  spoken,  in  which  His  personal  absence  from  them  was 
assumed  as  a  fundamental  condition  of  their  future  trials,  and  to  ' 
wait  for  His  return  made  a  continual  duty,  were  understood  by 
them.  It  was  not  till  after  His  resurrection  and  ascension 
that  they  could  know  what  His  coming,  and  the  waiting  for  it, 
meant. 

The  request  of  one  of  the  company  that  the  Lord  should 
speak  to  his  brother  to  divide  the  inheritance  with  him,  and  the 
following  parable  of  the  rich  fool,  are  mentioned  only  by  Luke. 
The  request  shows  how  much  the  attention  of  men  was  now 
turned  to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  this  fact  doubtless  greatly 
inflamed  the  hostility  of  the  Pharisees. 

November  —  December,  782.     A.D.  29. 

Being  told  of  the  murder  of  the  Galilseans  by  Pilate,     Luke  xiii.  1-9. 
he  replies,  and  adds  a  parable  respecting  the  fig  tree. 
While  teaching  in  the  synagogue  upon  the  Sabbath,  He    Luke  xiii.  10-17. 
heals  a  woman  who  has  been  sick  eighteen  years.     He  is    Luke  xiii.  18-21. 
rebuked  for  this  by  the  master  of  the  synagogue,  but  puts 
hiiu  to  shame.     He  continues  His  journey  toward  Jerusa- 
lem, and  replies  to  the  question  of  one  who  asked  Him,     Luke  xiii.  22-35. 
"Are  there  few  that  be  saved?"     The  same  day  He  is 
warned  by  certain  Pharisees  against  Herod. 

Of  these  Galilseans  so  murdered  by  Pilate  we  have  no  other 
mention,  and  cannot  tell  when  the  event  occurred.  There  can 
be  little  doubt  that  it  was  at  Jerusalem,  and  during  a  feast.' 
The  relations  of  Pilate  to  the  Jews  were  such  as  to  make  this 
act  of  cruelty  highly  probable.  He  was  no  respecter  of  places, 
and  did  not  hesitate  upon  occasion  to  violate  the  sanctity  of  the 
temple.  Some  suppose  these  Galilasans  to  have  been  the  follow- 
ers of  Judas  of  Galilee  (Acts  v.  37),  but  without  any  good 
grounds.  Probably  there  was  some  sudden  outbreak  at  one  of 
the  feasts;    and  they,  perhaps  taking  part  in  it,  perhaps  only 


1  See  analogous  cases  in  Josephus,  Autiq.,  xvii.  9,  10;  xviii.  3.  2. 
17* 


394  THE  LIFl!  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  Vt 

mere  spectators,  were  slain  by  the  Roman  soldiers  in  the  outer 
court.  Some  see  in  this  the  cause,  or  an  effect,  of  the  enmity 
between  Pilate  and  Herod  (Luke  xxiii.  1 2).  That  the  event  was 
recent,  and  that  it  excited  great  indignation,  are  apparent  from 
the  narrative.  The  attempt  of  Greswell  (iii.  26)  to  connect  it 
with  the  sedition  of  Barabbas  (Luke  xxiii.  19),  and  to  place  it  at 
the  beginning  of  the  last  Passover,  and  thus  to  find  in  it  a  note 
of  time,  is  more  subtle  than  forcible.  Hengstenberg/  suppos- 
ing that  the  parable  of  the  fig  tree  was  spoken  a  year  before  the 
Lord's  death,  makes  the  murder  of  these  Galilseans  to  have  been 
at  the  last  Passover  but  one,  or  that  mentioned  in  John  vi.  4, 
which  the  Lord  did  not  attend.  Edersheim,  with  more  ground, 
infers  that  it  had  just  occurred,  as  else  they  would  not  have 
spoken  of  it.  Of  the  tower  that  fell  in  Siloam  we  have  no 
knowledge,  but  as  Josephus  (War,  v.  4.  3)  speaks  of  the  towers 
on  the  city  walls,  it  has  been  conjectured  that  it  was  one  of 
them.  It  is  said  by  some,  as  Pressense,  that  it  occurred  during 
the  building  of  his  aqueduct  by  Pilate. 

The  parable  of  the  fig  tree  has  been  regarded  by  many  as 
giving  a  datum  to  determine  the  length  of  the  Lord's  ministry.^ 
But  it  is  doubtful  wliether  it  has  any  chronological  value,^  and 
the  point  has  been  already  discussed  in  the  chronological  essay. 
Some  refer  the  three  years  to  the  whole  period  before  Christ, 
during  which  God  was  waiting  for  the  Jews;*  some  to  the  three 
polities,  those  of  the  judges,  kings,  and  high  priests. 

The  healing  of  the  sick  woman  is  mentioned  by  Luke,  with- 
out any  mark  of  time  or  place,  except  generally,  that  it  was  in 
a  synagogue  and  upon  the  Sabbath.  The  decided  manner  in 
which  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue  expressed  himself  against  the 
lawfulness  of  healing  on  this  day,  indicates  that  the  Pharisaic 
party  had  determined  to  treat  such  works  of  healing  as  a  viola- 
tion of  its  sanctity.  There  is  no  expression  of  sympathy  with 
the  woman,  of  sorrow  at  her  sickness,  or  joy  at  her  recovery. 
That  in  this  condemnation  of  the  Lord's  act  he  was  supported 
by  others,  appears  from  verse  17.  Such  a  literal  adherence  to 
the  law  and  violation  of  its  spirit  awakened  Christ's  just  indigna 


1  Christol.,  iii.  S49.  *  Bengel,  Krafft,  Wieseler,  Stier. 

*  So  Meyer,  Lichtenstein,  Trench.  *  Grotius. 


Fart   V'l.]      THE   PHARISEES  WARN   JESUS   OF   HEROD.      395 

tion,  and  He  denounced  him  as  a  hypocrite.  Perhaps,  the  para- 
bles of  the  mustard  seed  and  leaven  may  have  been  originally 
spoken  here,  or  at  least  repeated  here." 

The  account  of  the  Lord's  progress  (verse  22)  that  "He 
went  through  the  cities  and  villages  —  Kara  nnXeig  koI  Kcjuag, — 
teaching  and  Journeying  toward  Jerusalem,"  is  too  indefinite  to 
determine  what  stage  of  His  journey  He  had  now  reached,  but 
it  indicates  that  He  visited  many  places  on  the  way.  'J'his  lan- 
guage is  over-pressed  by  Godet,  who  speaks  of  "  His  stopping  at 
every  city,  and  even  at  every  village."  Some  would  refer  it  to 
His  work  after  Dedication;  otlicrs,  to  His  going  up  from  Persea 
to  Bethany  at  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  (John  xi.  1-17).' 
Some  support  is  thought  to  be  found  for  the  last  in  the  Lord's 
words  (verses  32,  33):  "Behold,  I  cast  out  devils,  and  I  do 
cures  to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  the  third  I  shall  be  perfected. 
Nevertheless  I  must  walk  to-day,  and  to-morrow,  and  the 
day  following."  The  three  days  are  said  to  refer  to  the  time 
necessary  to  go  up  from  Peraea  to  Bethany,  and  so  are  to  be  liter- 
ally taken.  The  meaning  of  His  words  then  is,  "  In  three  days 
I  perfect  this  part  of  my  work,  and  not  till  then  do  I  leave 
Herod's  dominions."  But  even  if  the  language  is  capable  of 
this  interpretation,  it  is  certain  that  verse  22,  which  speaks  of  a 
journey  to  Jerusalem,  would  not  be  applied  to  a  journey  to 
Bethany,  which  was  rather  a  turning  aside  from  His  fixed  route 
in  answer  to  a  special  request. 

The  time  when  the  Pharisees  came  to  Him  to  warn  Him  to 
depart  or  Herod  would  kill  Him,  is  designated  as  the  same  day 
when  the  question  was  asked  Him,  "  Are  there  few  that  be 
saved?"  (Tisch.,  and  W.  and  H.,  have  tipa.  R.  V.:  "In  that 
very  hour.")  This  was  one  of  the  days  during  which  He  was 
teaching  and  journeying  toward  Jerusalem  (verse  22).  That 
Herod  should  be  spoken  of,  shows  that  Jesus  was  now  either  in 
Galilee  or  Peraea,  and  so  under  his  jurisdiction  and  exposed  to 
his  anger.  Meyer  supposes  Him  to  be  still  in  Galilee,  and  that 
His  reply  to  the  Pharisees  (verse  32)  is  to  be  undei-stood:  "I 
have  yet  three  days  in  which  to  labor  in  Galilee,  and  to  complete 
my  work  of  casting  out  devils  and  of  healing,  and  then  I  must 


1  McKnight,  Meyer,  Alford,  Godet. 
*  Wieseler,  Oosterzee. 


396  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI 

go  up  to  Jerusalem."  On  the  third  day  He  comes  to  the  border, 
as  related  in  xvii.  11.  Wieseler  (Syn.,  322)  makes  Him  to  have 
journeyed  three  days  to  reach  Bethany.  But  are  the  Lord's 
words  to  be  understood  of  three  literal  days? '  This  literal 
interpretation  is  not  to  be  pressed.  The  number  three  seems 
here,  as  in  the  three  years  (verse  7),  to  denote  a  period  of 
time  as  complete  in  itself,  with  a  beginning,  middle,  and  end, 
and  does  not  give  us  any  chronological  help.  There  is  no  good 
reason  why  the  language  may  not  be  understood  as  a  general 
statement,  that  His  labors  must  be  continued  till  He  should  per- 
fect them  at  His  death  in  Jerusalem.^ 

The  motive  of  these  Pharisees  in  thus  warning  the  Lord  to 
depart,  is  not  clear.  It  is  possible  that  they  were  His  friends, 
and  that  their  message  was  based  upon  some  information  which 
they  possessed  of  the  purposes  of  Herod,  who  may  have  been  in 
Persea,  at  Livias  or  Machaerus.  Had  he  been,  the  great  pub- 
licity with  which  the  Lord  journeyed  could  scarcely  have  failed 
to  draw  the  king's  attention  to  Him,  and  to  awaken  some  sus- 
picion of  His  designs.  If  not  His  friends,  some  suppose  them  to 
have  been  sent  by  Herod  in  order  to  frighten  Him  from  his 
territories.^  This  supposition  finds  some  support  in  His  reply, 
"  Go  ye,  and  tell  that  fox."  Less  probable  is  the  supposition 
that  they  feigned  themselves  to  be  Herod's  messengers,  in  order 
to  drive  Him  into  Judaea  where  He  could  be  more  readily  arrested 
by  the  priests  and  rulers.  Perhaps  the  simpler  explanation  is 
that,  without  being  sent  by  Herod,  or  having  any  special  knowl- 
edge of  his  plans,  they  gratify  their  malice  by  uttering  the 
threat  that  he  will  kill  Him  if  He  does  not  depart. 

The  apostrophe  to  Jerusalem  (verses  34,  35)  is  found  also  in 
Matt,  xxiii.  37-39,  where  it  was  spoken  after  the  Lord  left  the 
temple  for  the  last  time.  From  its  nature,  and  from  the  con- 
nection in  which  it  stands  in  both  Evangelists,  it  is  probable  that 
it  was  twice  spoken.''  Those  who  think  it  to  have  been  spoken 
but  once,  find  its  most  fitting  place  in  Matthew.^ 


1  So  Meyer,  Alford,  Ellicott.  This,  however,  makes  it  necessary  to  render 
T«AeioOMoi,  "  I  perfect  my  works,"  or,  "  I  close  my  ministry,"  not  as  in  our  version,  "  I 
shall  be  perfected."    R.  V.:  "  I  am  perfected." 

*  So  Lichtenstein  Stier,  Owen,  Godet.        ^  McKniRht,  Meyer,  Alford,  Weiss. 

*  So  Stier,  Alford,  ElUcott  ^  Meyer,  Lange,  DeWette. 


Part  VI.]  THE   FEAST   OF  DEDICATION.  397 

It  has  been  questioned  how  the  words,  "Ye  shall  not  see 
me,  until  the  time  come  when  ye  shall  say,  Blessed  is  He  that 
Cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  are  to  be  understood.  The 
most  obvious  meaning  is,  that  they  are  to  be  taken  in  the  large 
prophetic  sense,  and  refer  to  His  departure  into  heaven,  and  to 
His  joyful  reception  by  the  nation  when  He  should  come  again 
in  His  kingdom.  And  this  also  best  fits  the  connection  of  the 
thought.  No  prophet  could  perish  out  of  Jerusalem.  There 
He  must  die,  and  afterward  ascend  to  God,  to  be  seen  no  more 
till  the  hearts  of  the  people  should  be  made  ready  for  Him. 
Till  then,  their  house  was  left  unto  them  desolate.'  Here  is 
brought  out  the  truth  that  He  would  return  when  His  people 
should  desire  it,  and  welcome  His  heralds.  The  supposition  that 
He  foretold  His  purpose  to  go  up  to  the  coming  Passover,  and 
that  it  then  found  its  entire  fulfilment,^  is  erroneous.  That  some 
of  the  people  did  then  say  (Luke  xix.  38),  "  Blessed  be  the  King 
that  Cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  was  no  general,  much 
less  national,  acceptance  of  Him,  and  no  real  fulfillment  of  His 
words.  Still,  some  allusion  to  the  shouts  of  the  multitude  at  His 
is  triumphal  entry  need  not  be  denied.^ 

December  20-27,  782.     A.  D.  29. 

From  Perrea  He  goes  up  to  Jerusalem  to  be  present  at  the    John  x.  22-24. 
Feast  of  Dedication.     Upon  the  way  He  passes  through  the 
village  of  Bethany,  and  visits  Mary  and  Martha.     Reaching    Luke  x.  38^2. 
Jerusalem,  the  Jews  demand  that  He  declare  plainly  whether 
He  is  or  is  not  the  Messiah.     He  answers  them  by  referring  to    John  x.  25-42. 
His  past  words  and  works.     The  Jews,  thinking  His  answer 
blasphemous,  take  up  stones  to  stone  Him.     He  continues 
His  discourse  to  them,  but  as  they  seek  to  arrest  Him  He  es- 
capes from  them,  and  goes  beyond  Jordan  to  Bethany  (Beth- 
abara),  and  abides  there.     Many  resort  to   Him,  and  believe 
on  Him. 

It  is  at  this  point,  after  Luke  xiii.,  that  we  would  insert  the 
narrative  of  John  (x.  22-42),  embracing  the  visit  to  the  Feast 
of  Dedication,  and  the  return  to  Persea.  These  events  are 
omitted  by  the  Synoptists  as  not  falling  into  the  scope  of  their 


1  Tisch.  and  W.  and  H.  omit  "  desolate  "  —  epij^os.    TiscU.  retains  it,  Matt,  xxiil 
3,  but  W.  and  H.  mark  it  as  a  secondary  reading. 

2  Wieseler,  321,  3  Meyer,  in  loco, 


398  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI. 

narratives,  which  leads  them  to  mention  no  visit  to  Jerusalem 
but  the  last. 

That  the  visit  at  Bethany  to  Martha  and  Mary,  mentioned 
by  Luke  only,  took  place  at  this  time,  cannot  be  positively 
affirmed,  but  it  cannot  well  be  put  earlier.  It  may  be  placed  by 
the  Evangelist  in  its  present  position  in  the  narrative  upon  other 
than  chronological  grounds,  but  there  are  no  very  strong  chron- 
ological objections  to  the  place  here  given  it. 

The  journey,  as  it  has  been  traced,  brings  Him  into  the 
neighborhood  of  Jerusalem.  His  presence  at  the  Feast  of  Dedi- 
cation, which  was  celebrated  for  eight  days,  from  the  20th  to 
the  27th  of  December,  is  often  ascribed  to  the  fact  of  His  prox- 
imity to  the  city,  rather  than  to  any  design  on  leaving  Galilee 
to  be  present.'  It  is  not  indeed  probable  that  He  would  go  up 
simply  because  of  the  feast,  which  He  might  have  observed  else- 
where. The  three  great  feasts,  says  Lightfoot,  "  might  not  be 
celebrated  in  any  other  place,  but  the  Encenia  was  kept  every- 
where throughout  the  whole  land."  As  one  of  the  minor  feasts, 
His  presence  implies  some  special  motive.  May  we  not  find 
this  in  the  character  of  the  Lord's  last  journey?  For  a  consid- 
erable period  He  had  avoided  Jerusalem;  at  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
ernacles  He  went  up  secretly.  Now  He  seeks  pubhcity.  Wher- 
ever the  Seventy  go  they  proclaim  Him,  and  all  understand  that 
He  appears  as  the  Messiah.  Perhaps,  as  has  been  already  inti- 
mated. He  may  have  designed  to  send  His  messengers  into 
Judaea,  and  if  they  found  a  favorable  reception,  to  follow  them. 
The  great  desire  of  His  heart  is  to  save  Jerusalem  from  its  im- 
pending destruction  (Matt,  xxiii.  37).  He  will  present  Himself 
again  before  the  priests  and  scribes  and  rulers  that  they  may 
show  forth  what  is  in  their  hearts,  show  whether  they  can  yet 
recognize  in  Him  the  Messiah.  And  the  Feast  of  Dedication 
had  special  significance  as  the  time  of  such  a  visit.  It  was  ap- 
pointed in  commemoration  of  the  national  deliverance  by  the 
Maccabees  from  the  oppression  of  the  Syrians  (b.  c.  164),  and  of 
the  cleansing  of  the  temple  and  restoration  of  the  appointed 
worship.-  It  should  not  only  have  reminded  the  Jews  of  the 
sins  that  brought  them  under  the  tyranny  of  Antiochus,  and  of 


1  Lichtenstein.  ?  J  Maccabees  iv.  52-59. 


Part  VI.]    JESUS  IN  THE  TEMPLE  ANSWERS  THE  JEWS.     399 

the  goodness  of  God  in  their  deliverance;  but  have  taught  them 
the  true  cause  of  their  present  bondage,  and  awakened  in  them 
hopes  of  a  more  glorious  deliverance  through  the  Son  of  David. 
Had  the  Lord  found  them  conscious  of  sin,  and  humbling  them- 
selves ^^nder  the  punishments  of  God,  the  way  would  have  been 
opened  for  a  new  cleansing  of  the  temple,  and  the  bringing  in 
of  a  new  and  nobler  worship.  But,  as  the  event  showed,  the 
feast  served  only  to  feed  their  pride,  to  foster  their  hate  of 
Roman  rule,  and  to  turn  their  hearts  away  from  the  true  Deliv- 
erer. A  Judas  Maccabaeus  they  would  have  welcomed;  but 
Jesus,  whose  first  work  must  be  to  deliver  them  from  sin,  found 
no  favor  in  their  eyes. 

It  is  possible  that  some  of  the  Seventy  may  have  preceded 
Jesus  to  Jerusalem,  announcing  His  coming;  but  if  not,  His 
movements  must  have  been  well  known  there.  The  manner  in 
which  the  Jews  gather  around  Him,  and  the  character  of  their 
question:  "How  long  dost  Thou  make  us  to  doubt?  (R.  V.: 
'  How  long  dost  Thou  hold  us  in  suspense  ?  ')  If  Thou  be  the 
Christ,  tell  us  plainly,"  clearly  indicate  that  in  some  way  their 
attention  had  been  especially  drawn  to  Him  as  something  more 
than  a  prophet,  as  indeed  the  Christ.  If  we  compare  this  lan- 
guage with  that  uttered  but  two  months  earlier,  it  appears  evi- 
dent that  His  Messianic  claims  had  now  become  more  prominent. 
That  the  Jews  asked  the  question  with  the  intent  to  make  an 
aflfirmative  answer  the  basis  of  accusation,*  is  not  improbable; 
but  it  may  also  have  been  an  honest  expression  of  doubt.  It  is 
to  be  noticed  that  no  mention  is  made  of  any  preliminary  teach- 
ing or  healing,  nothing  to  call  forth  the  question.  He  is  silent 
till  it  is  addressed  Him  by  the  people,  and  this  was  as  soon  as 
He  appeared  in  the  temple.  The  place  of  His  teaching  was  Sol- 
omon's porch,'  probably  selected  because  of  the  cold. 

The  Lord's  reply:  "I  told  you,  and  ye  believed  not,"  must 
refer  to  the  general  sentiment  and  scope  of  His  teachings;  for 
we  nowhere  have  on  record  any  express  avowal  to  the  Jews  that 
He  was  the  Messiah.  Such  an  avowal  He  seems  purposely 
to  have  avoided.     His  own  words  were:   "  If  I  bear  witness  of 


^  So  Meyer  after  Luther,  M.  and  M.,  Eders. 

2  See  Caspar!,  298,  and  Edersheim,  ii.  229,  who  differ  as  to  Us  locality. 


400  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI. 

Myself,  toy  witness  is  hot  true.  There  is  another  that  'beareth 
Witness  of  tne  "  (John  v.  3l,  32).  In  conformity  to  this  general 
rule,  He  here  refers  the  Jews  to  His  works.  "  The  works  that 
I  do  in  my  Father's  name,  they  bear  witness  of  me";  and  that 
this  evidence  was  not  sufficient,  He  ascribes  to  their  unbelief. 
This  was  not  what  they  wanted,  and  they  must  have  thought  it 
very  ren^arkable  that  if  He  were  the  Christ,  He  did  not  explicitly 
and  openly  affirm  it.  They  did  not  consider  that  "with  the 
heai't  man  believeth  unto  righteousness  " ;  and  that  the  evidence 
that  was  convincing  to  a  Nathanael,  was  wholly  unsatisfactory 
to  a  Caiaphas.  That  in  their  question  they  had  no  other  than 
the  current  conceptions  of  the  Messiah,  appears  from  the  effect 
of  His  reply  upon  them.  So  soon  as  He  began  to  speak  of  His 
relations  to  God  as  His  Father,  and  said,  "  I  and  My  Father  are 
one,"  they  sought  to  stone  Him.  This  was  open  blasphemy,  and 
the  blasphemer  must  be  stoned. 

His  reference  to  the  figure  of  the  sheep  (verse  26),  as  it  had 
been  used  by  Him  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (x.  1-18),  is  not 
strange,  for  probably  most  of  those  now  present,  priests,  scribes, 
and  Pharisees,  were  residents  in  Jerusalem,  and  had  heard  His 
words  at  that  time.  The  interval  was  but  two  months,  not  so 
long  that  they  could  have  forgotten  what  He  then  said, 
especially  if  they  had  not  heard  Him  since.  At  all  His  former 
visits  to  the  Holy  City  He  wrought  a  miracle  or  miracles,  but 
none  are  recorded  of  Him  at  this  time. 

This  attempt  to  take  His  life,  compared  with  that  at  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles  (viii.  59),  may  perhaps  show  less  of  hasty  passion, 
l)ut  indicates  a  fixed  purpose  to  destroy  Him.'  The  attempt  to 
take  Him  (verse  39)  may  have  been  with  design  to  keep  Him 
in  custody  till  He  could  be  formally  tried;  or  to  remove  Him 
from  the  temple  that  they  might  immediately  stone  Him. 
That  His  escape  was  miraculous  is  not  said,  though  so  regarded 
by  many.^  If  He  had  designed  to  send  His  messengers  into 
Judaea,  this  new  manifestation  of  hostility  may  have  prevented 
it;  for  if  His  life  was  in  danger  at  Jerusalem,  He  could  not  have 
journeyed  safely  into  other  parts  of  the  province.  No  other 
place   of   refuge   was   open  to  Him    than    Per^ea.     Thus    the 


1  Luthardt,  ii.  190.  2  go  Luthardt;  contra,  Meyer. 


Part  VI.]  JESUS   RETURNS   TO   PER^A.  401 

Seventy  may  but  partially  have  completed  their  intended  circuit, 
Judaea  being  shut  against  them ;  and  this  will  explain  why  their 
labors  are  so  briefly  noticed  by  the  Evangelist. 

The  Lord,  now  leaving  Judaea,  goes  beyond  Jordan,  "  into  the 
place  where  John  at  first  baptized."  There  is  no  doubt  that  this 
was  Bethabara  or  Bethany  (John  i.  28).  Its  position  has  already 
lieen  considered,  though  no  positive  result  was  reached.  The 
strong  probability  is  that  John  began  his  baptism  near  Jericho, 
and  this  place  would  seem  to  be  meant  here,  even  if  he  later 
went  higher  up  the  river  to  other  baptismal  places.  The  matter 
will  meet  us  again  in  connection  with  the  death  of  Lazarus. 
The  motives  that  led  to  its  selection  are  wholly  conjectural. 
That  He  sought  it  merely  as  a  place  of  safety  from  the  Jews,  is 
possible;  but  here,  on  the  other  hand,  He  was  exposed  to  the 
anger  of  Herod  (Luke  xiii.  31,  32).  Aside  from  considerations 
of  His  personal  safety,  there  is  much  significance  in  this  return 
to  the  place  of  His  baptism.  He  might  expect  to  find  there, 
as  He  did,  many  whose  hearts  had  been  prepared  by  the  teach- 
ings and  baptism  of  John  for  the  reception  of  His  own  words. 
It  is  said  that  "  there  He  abode."  '  This,  as  has  been  said,  would 
not  forbid  that  He  should  make  short  circuits  through  the  sur- 
rounding towns.  It  was  while  in  this  place,  whether  town  or  dis- 
trict, that  many  resorted  unto  Him,  and  here  Mary  and  Martha 
sent  to  Him  during  the  sickness  of  Lazarus.  How  long  He 
sojourned  here  ere  He  went  up  to  Bethany  near  Jerusalem,  to  raise 
Lazarus,  does  not  clearly  appear.  It,  is  inferred  by  some,  from 
the  language  of  His  disciples  after  He  had  proposed  to  return  to 
Judaea  (xi.  7,  8):  "The  Jews  of  late  sought  to  stone  Thee"  — 
vvv  ei^rjrovv  —  (R.  V.:  "Were  but  now  seeking  to  stone  Thee,") 
that  He  had  but  just  come  from  Jerusalem.^  Much  stress,  how- 
ever, cannot  be  laid  on  this.  (See  Acts  vii.  52.)  From  the  Feast 
of  Dedication  to  the  Passover  was  about  four  months,  and  it  is  not 
improbable  that  half  of  this,  or  more,  was  spent  "beyond  Jor- 
dan," in  the  neighborhood  of  Bethany.  Many  would  place  during 
this  time  much  that  Luke  relates.  LTpon  grounds  already  stated, 
we  shall  assign  to  this  period  all  from  chap.  xiv.  to  xvii.  10. 


L 


1  As  to  the  use  of  "  abode,"  niveiv,  see  John  iv.  40;  vii.  9;  xi.  6.         ^  Meyer. 


403  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  VL 

January,  783.     A.  D.  30. 

The  Lord  is  invited  to  feast  with  one  of  the  chief  Phari-    Luke  xiv.  1-6. 
sees  on  the  Sabbath  day,  and  there  heals  a  man  who  had 
the  dropsy,  and  defends  the  lawfulness  of  the  act.     He  ad- 
dresses the  guests,  reproving  them  for  choosing  tlie  highest    Luke  xiv.  7-14. 
seats,  and  reminds  His  host  of  his  duty  to  the  poor,  and 
speaks  the  parable  of  the  great  supper.     As  He  journeys    Luke  xiv.  15-24. 
on,  great    multitudes    go   with   Him,  and   He  addresses    Luke  xiv.  25-35. 
them  upon  the  self-denial  required  in  disciples.     Publicans 
and  sinners  coming  in  large  numbers  to   hear  Him,   the    Luke  xv.  1-32. 
scribes  and  Pharisees  murmur  that  He  should  receive  them, 
and  eat  with  them.     He,  therefore,  utters  several  parables, 
those  of  the  lost  sheep,  of  the  lost  piece  of  silver,  and  of  the 
prodigal  son;  and  to  His  disciples   that  of  the  w^asteful 
steward,  adding  admonitions  against  covetousness.     The    Luke  xvi.  1-13. 
Pharisees  deriding  Him,  He  rebukes  them,  and  utters  the    Luke  xvi.  14^31. 
parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus.     He  addresses  the    Luke  xvii.  1-10. 
disciples  upon  ofEenses,  and  forgiveness,  and  faith. 

The  Pharisee  by  whom  the  Lord  was  invited  to  eat  bread  is 
described  as  -'one  of  the  chief  Pharisees."  This  may  denote 
that  he  was  of  high  social  position,  but  probably  includes 
some  official  distinction,  as  that  he  was  chief  of  a  synagogue,  or 
member  of  the  local  Sanhedrin.  His  motive  in  thus  seeking 
the  Lord's  society  does  not  clearly  appear;  and  it  is  possible 
that,  unlike  most  of  his  sect,  he  wished  to  show  him  some  mark 
of  respect,  perhaps  as  a  prophet,  perhaps  as  the  Messiah.  Still 
the  Lord's  words  (verse  12)  imply  that  He  made  the  feast  in  a  self- 
seeking,  ostentatious  spirit,  and  under  the  pretence  of  hospitality 
he  may  have  hidden  an  evil  design.  (So  Trench,  Godet.)  It 
appears  that  there  were  many  invited,  and  that  they  were  of  the 
rich  and  better  class.  It  was  customary  for  the  Jews  to  enter- 
tain their  friends  upon  the  Sabbath,  although  they  cooked  no 
food.  "  The  Jews'  tables  were  generally  better  spread  on  that 
day  than  on  any  other."  ' 

The  appearance  of  the  dropsical  man  at  such  a  feast,  it  is  not 
easy  to  explain.  He  could  hardly,  if  severely  ill,  have  been  in- 
vited as  a  guest;  and  it  is  said  that  after  the  Lord  had  "  healed 
him.  He  let  him  go,"  as  if  he  were  only  accidentally  present. 
Nor  is  it  probable  that  he  came  merely  as  a  spectator,  although 


Lightfoot;  see  Trench,  Mir.,  263. 


I 


Part  \  I.J      HEALING   OF  A   MAN  WITH   THE   DROPSY.        403 

eastern  customs  permit  strangers  to  enter  houses  at  all  hours 
with  great  freedom,  and  they  are  often  present  at  feasts  merely 
to  look  on.  Some  have  therefore  supposed  that  he  was  inten- 
tionally brought  in  by  the  Pharisees,  to  see  if  the  Lord  would 
Ileal  him  on  that  day,'  he  assenting  to  it.  But  had  he  been  a 
mere  tool  in  the  hands  of  the  Pharisees,  it  may  well  be  doubted 
if  the  Lord  would  have  healed  him.  It  is  more  probable  that 
he  came  in  faith  to  be  healed,  and  unable,  perhaps,  to  approach 
the  Lord  before  He  entered  into  the  house,  now  forced  himself 
into  the  room  where  He  was. 

McKnight  supposes  the  parable  of  the  great  supper  to  be  the 
same  as  that  mentioned  by  Matthew  xxii.  2-14,  and  to  have  been 
spoken  a  second  time  in  the  temple.  But  the  parables  are 
wholly  distinct,  as  a  comparison  of  the  details  plainly  shows. 
(So  Trench,  Meyer,  Godet,  Keil.) 

As  the  end  of  His  ministry  drew  nigh,  and  the  hostility  of 
His  enemies  became  more  open,  the  Lord's  words  became  more 
and  more  plain  in  showing  how  much  of  self-denial  was  involved 
in  becoming  one  of  His  disciples.  The  same  remarks  in  sub- 
stance He  had  before  made  (Matt.  x.  37);  but  He  here  adds  new 
illustrations.  He  compares  Himself  to  a  man  who  wishes  to 
build  a  tower,  His  Church;  and  to  a  king  who  goes  to  make 
war  with  another  king,  with  the  prince  of  this  world;  and  they 
who  would  aid  Him  in  this  building,  or  in  this  warfare,  must  be 
ready  to  sacrifice  all. 

The  great  concourse  of  publicans  and  sinners  to  Him  cannot 
be  explained  from  anything  in  His  language  (xiv.  25-35)  as 
especially  applicable  to  them,  nor  as  springing  from  their  ex- 
clusion from  the  feast.  It  rather  marks  the  fact  that,  now  that 
His  words  had  become  more  sharp  against  the  Pharisees,  and  the 
breach  between  them  and  Him  more  apparent,  this  class  rallied 
around  Him  and  thronged  to  hear  Him.  Much  to  the  disgust 
of  the  Pharisees,  He  did  not  disdain  even  to  eat  with  them. 
Such  an  act  they  deemed  in  the  highest  degree  unbecoming  in 
one  who  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah;  and  it  was  also  a  keen  re- 
proof to  themselves,  who  so  scrupulously  excluded  all  publicans 
and  sinners  from  their  society. 


M[cKnight,  Oosterzee,  Stier,  Keil. 


404  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI. 

It  is  disputed  whether  the  parable  of  the  lost  sheep,  as  here 
given  by  Luke,  is  the  same  as  that  given  by  Matt,  xviii.  12,  13. 
From  the  relation  in  which  it  stands  to  the  other  parables  which 
Luke  has  recorded,  we  cannot  well  doubt  that  it  was  spoken  at  the 
same  time.  But  such  an  illustration,  so  natural  and  apt,  may 
have  been  used  more  than  once,  and  been  spoken  earlier  in 
Galilee,  as  Matthew  relates.  Perhaps,  both  in  form  and  in  mean- 
ing, some  distinction  may  be  drawn  between  them.. 

The  parables  of  the  lost  sheep,  of  the  lost  piece  of  silver,  and 
of  the  prodigal  son,  seem  to  have  been  all  uttered  at  once  to  the 
Pharisees  and  scribes,  who  murmured  at  His  reception  of 
publicans  and  sinners.  That  which  immediately  follows,  of  the 
unjust  steward,  was  spoken  to  the  disciples;  but  whether  im- 
mediately or  after  a  little  interval,  we  have  no  data  to  decide. 

It  is  not  easy  to  see  how  the  words  addressed  to  the  Pharisees 
in  verse  18,  respecting  divorce  and  adultery,  are  to  be  connected 
with  the  verses  immediately  preceding;  perhaps  they  may  be  an 
abstract  of  some  discourse  not  otherwise  mentioned;  but  the 
parable  that  follows,  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  has  plain 
reference  to  that  sect.  Whether  the  words  to  the  disciples 
(xvii.  1-10)  followed  at  once  upon  the  parable,  we  cannot  deter- 
mine. 

January — February,  783.     A.  D.  30. 

Lazarus,  the  brother  of  Marj'  and  Martha,  being  sick,  John  xi.  1-46. 
they  send  a  messenger  to  the  Lord  in  Peraea  to  inform 
Him  of  his  sickness.  After  receiving  the  message.  He 
abides  still  two  days  in  the  place  where  He  is.  Taking 
the  disciples  with  them,  He  then  goes  to  Bethany  and 
raises  Lazarus  from  the  dead.  Many  of  the  Jews  present 
believe  on  Him,  but  others  departing  to  Jerusalem  tell 
what  has  occurred  to  the  Pharisees.  A  council  is  sum-  John  xi.  47-54. 
moned,  and  Oaiaphas  the  high  priest  advises  that  He  be 
put  to  death.  Jesus,  learning  this,  goes  with  His  dis- 
ciples to  a  city  called  Ephraim,  and  His  enemies  give  a 
commandment,  that,  if  any  man  know  where  He  is,  he 
shall  show  it,  that  they  may  take  Him. 

At  this  point  in  Luke's  narrative  (xvii.  11)  we  insert  the 
account  given  by  John  of  the  journey  of  Jesus  from  Peraea  to 
Bethany  to  raise  Lazarus,  and  of  His  subsequent  departure  to 
Ephraim  and  sojourn  there.     The  exact  order  of   events   con- 


Part  VI.]         THE   RESURRECTION   OF   LAZARUS.  405 

nected  witli  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  is  not  clear. 
The  Lord  waits  two  days  after  receiving  the  message  of  the 
sisters  ere  He  departs  for  Bethany.  It  is  not  certain  how  long 
after  the  death  of  Lazarus  He  arrived  there.  It  is  said  (verse  17) 
that  "  when  He  came  He  found  that  lie  had  lain  in  the  grave 
four  days  already."  We  may  then  count  as  the  first  day  that 
on  which  the  message  was  sent  and  received;  the  two  follow- 
ing days  of  waiting;  and  on  the  fourth  He  departs  from 
Peraea  and  arrives  at  Bethany.  If  we  thus  suppose  Lazarus 
to  have  died  on  the  same  day  that  the  message  was  sent, 
and  to  have  been  buried  the  same  day,  as  was  customary, 
(see  Acts  v.  6  and  10)  the  day  of  the  Lord's  arrival  was  the 
fourth  after  the  interment.  Reckoning  a  part  of  a  day  as  a 
whole,  we  have  thus  the  four  days.  Lardner '  supposes  that 
his  burial  was  the  day  following  his  death.  "If  he  died  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  he  was  buried  on  the  second,  and  raised 
on  the  fifth.  He  had  been  dead  four  days  complete,  and  buried 
four  days  incomplete." 

Tholuck  (in  loco)  thinks  it  improbable  that  Jesus  could  have 
made  the  journey  (perhaps  23-29  miles)  in  one  day,  and  yet 
arrive  in  Bethany  in  season  to  do  all  that  is  recorded  of  Him. 
He  must  have  spent  parts  of  two  days  upon  the  road.  He  sup- 
poses, therefore,  that  Lazarus  died  the  night  following  the  arrival 
of  the  messenger  and  was  buried  the  next  day,  and  that  Jesus 
reached  Bethany  the  fifth  day.  The  first  day  was  that  of  the 
burial;  the  second  and  third  were  spent  in  waiting;  the  fourth 
in  journeying ;  on  the  fifth  He  reaches  Bethany  and  raises 
Lazarus. 

Some  place  the  death  of  Lazarus  on  the  last  of  the  two  days 
of  waiting,  referring  in  proof  to  Christ's  words  (verses  11  and 
14).-  He  had  waited  till  the  death  should  take  place,  and, 
so  soon  as  it  did.  He  announced  it  to  the  disciples,  saying, 
"  Lazarus  is  dead."  Thus  He  is  made  to  reach  Bethany  on  the 
sixth  day.^ 

Edersheira  (ii.  315),  supposing  the  journey  to  Bethany  to 
have  occupied  a  day,  thinks  that  the  messenger  left  Bethany  on 


»  Works,  X.  26,  note.  2  Benp;pl,  Krafft. 

8  SeeGreswell,  ii.  513;  Ebrard,  450;  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  18G2,  p.  65. 


406  The  life  op  our  lord.  [Part  Vi 

a  Sunday  and  reached  Jesus  on  Monday.  He  continued  where 
He  was  two  days  —  Tuesday,  Wednesday  —  and  reached  Beth- 
any on  Thursday,  and  raised  Lazarus  the  same  day,  and  on 
Friday  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees  gathered  a  council. 

That  the  Lord,  after  He  commenced  this  journey,  went  directly  to 
Bethany,  lies  upon  the  face  of  the  narrative.'  Yet  some  sup- 
pose that  much  related  by  the  Synoptists  finds  here  its  proper 
place.  Krafft  (117)  identifies  the  beginning  of  the  journey  with 
Mark  x.  17 :  "  And  when  He  was  gone  forth  into  the  way,"  etc. ;  and 
Mark  x.  32,  Matt.  xx.  17,  and  Luke  xviii.  31,  with  its  progress.  An 
enumeration  of  the  events  which  he  here  brings  together  will  show 
the  great  improbability  of  his  arrangement:  the  discourse  upon  the 
danger  of  riches,  the  reward  of  the  apostles,  the  third  announcement 
of  His  approaching  death,  the  strife  of  the  apostles  for  supremacy, 
the  entrance  into  Jericho  attended  by  crowds,  healing  of  the  blind 
men,  interview  with  Zacchaeus,  parable  of  the  pounds;  all  this  on  the 
way  to  Bethany.  Ebrard  does  not  follow  KrafFt,  yet  supposes  that, 
as  He  was  two  or  more  days  on  the  way,  He  may  have  made  several 
circuits.  All  suppositions  of  this  kind  are  wholly  untenable.  The 
Lord  went  to  Bethany  for  a  special  purpose,  attended  only  by  His 
followers,  and  Avithout  puljlicity.'* 

Bethany  lies  on  the  eastern  slope  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  some 
fifteen  furlongs  (nearly  two  miles)  southeast  from  Jerusalem.  The 
etymology  of  the  name  is  uncertain.  According  to  some  it  means 
"  a  low  place,"  locus  depressionis,  as  lying  in  a  little  valley;  according 
to  others,  a  "  house  of  dates,"  or  "  place  of  palms,"  locus  dactylorum.'^ 
It  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament.  Its  chief  interest  to  us  is 
in  its  connection  with  Lazarus  and  his  two  sisters ;  and  with  the  Lord's 
Ascension.  Its  proximity  to  Jerusalem  and  its  retired  position  made 
it  a  convenient  and  pleasant  resting  place  for  the  Lord  upon  His  jour- 
neys to  and  from  the  feasts,  although  there  is  mention  made  but  once 
of  His  presence  there  (Luke  x.  38-42)  prior  to  the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus.  It  is  now  a  small  village  of  some  twenty  houses,  occupied 
by  Bedouin  Arabs.  "  A  wild  mountain  hamlet,  screened  by  an  inter- 
vening ridge  from  the  view  of  the  top  of  Olivet,  perched  on  its  broken 
plateau  of  rock,  the  last  collection  of  human  habitations  before  the 


1  So  Meyer,  Tischendorf,  Lichtenstein,  Robinson. 

2  The  arrangement  of  McKnight  is  extraordinary.  Placing  Bethany,  where  He 
was  sojourning,  on  the  Jordan  in  northern  Penca,  he  supposes  Jesus  to  have  gone 
through  Samaria  and  GalUee,  and  on  the  way  to  have  healed  the  ten  lepers  (Luke  xvii. 
11),  and  thence  to  Jerusalem,  and  from  Jerusalem  to  Bethany  of  Judtea. 

i>  Lightfoot,  X.  85;  Winer,  i.  ii~. 


Part  VJ.]  THE   VILLAGE   OF  BETHANY.  407 

desert  hills  which  reach  to  Jericho  —  this  is  the  modern  village  of  El- 
Azariyeh."'  Little  that  is  ancient  is  now  to  be  found.  A  tradition 
that  dates  back  to  an  early  period,  points  out  the  sites  of  the  houses 
of  Simon  and  of  Lazarus,  and  the  sepulchre  of  the  hxtter.  "This," 
says  Porter,''  "  is  a  deep  vault,  partly  excavated  in  the  rock,  and  partly 
lined  with  masonry.  The  entrance  is  low,  and  opens  on  a  long,  wind- 
ing, half-ruinous  staircase,  leading  down  to  a  small  chamber,  and  from 
this  a  few  steps  more  lead  down  to  another  smaller  vault,  in  which 
the  body  of  Lazarus  is  supposed  to  have  lain.  This  situation  of  the 
tomb  in  the  centre  of  the  village  scarcely  agrees  with  the  Gospel  nar- 
rative, and  the  masonry  of  the  interior  has  no  appearance  of  antiquity. 
But  the  real  tomb  could  not  have  been  far  distant."  Thomson  says 
(ii.  599):  "By  the  dim  light  of  a  taper  we  descended  very  cautiously 
by  twenty-five  slippery  steps  to  the  reputed  sepulchre  of  Lazarus,  or 
El-Azariyeh,  as  both  tomb  and  village  are  now  called.  But  I  have 
no  description  of  it  to  give,  and  no  questions  about  it  to  ask.  It  is  a 
wretched  concern,  every  way  unsatisfactory,  and  almost  disgusting." 
Robinson  denies  that  the  sepulchre  now  shown  could  have  been  that 
of  Lazarus.  In  this,  Tristram  agrees  (B.  P.  130):  "It  is  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  village,  and  most  unlike  the  character  and  situation  of 
Jewish  sepulchres."  Edersheim  supposes  him  to  have  been  buried 
"in  his  own  private  tomb  in  a  cave,  and  probably  in  a  garden." 

The  impression  which  the  miracle  of  the  resurrection  of  Laz- 
arus made  upon  the  people  at  large,  was  very  great.  It  was  in 
all  its  circumstances  so  public  and  so  well  authenticated  that  it 
was  impossible  for  the  most  skeptical  to  deny  it,  even  if  it  did  not 
lead  them  to  faith  in  Jesus.  It  is  said  (vs.  45,  46)  "  Then  many 
of  the  Jews  which  came  to  Mary  ....  believed  on  Him. 
But  some  of  them  went  their  ways  to  the  Pharisees  and  told 
them  what  things  Jesus  had  done."  Two  classes  are  here  spoken 
of:  the  first,  which  included  tliose  who  came  to  Mary  and  saw  the 
things  which  Jesus  did  —  all  these  believed ;  the  second,  other 
Jews  who  had  not  seen,  and  these  are  they  who  went  to  the 
Pharisees.  (So  M.  and  M.,  Godet.)  From  the  grammatical  con- 
struction, Meyer  infers  that  those  who  went  to  the  Pharisees 
were  of  those  who  believed,  and  that  they  went  that  they  might 
testify  to  them  of  the  miracle.^  As  all  did  not  believe  on  Him, 
it  is  more  probable  that  some  of  these  unbelievers  went  to  the 


I 


1  Stanley,  186;  Baed.,  258.  •  Hand-Book,  i.  188. 

3  See,  contra,  Luthardt  and  AJford,  in  loco. 


408  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI. 

Pharisees,  and  that  their  motive  was  evil.  The  ecclesiastical 
rulers  felt  that  it  was  now  high  time  that  something  should  be 
done,  and  they  proceed  at  once  to  call  a  council  to  determine 
what  steps  should  be  taken.  Their  dehberations  ended  with  the 
resolve  that  He  should  be  put  to  death.  This  may  be  regarded 
as  the  decisive  and  final  rejection  of  Jesus  by  the  Jewish  author- 
ities. Much  earlier  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem  had  sought  to  slay 
Him  as  a  Sabbath-breaker  and  blasphemer  (John  v.  16-18);  the 
Pharisees  and  Herodians  in  Galilee  had  taken  counsel  how  they 
might  destroy  Him  (Mark  iii.  6);  the  Sanhedrin  had  agreed  to 
excommunicate  any  one  who  should  confess  that  He  was  Christ 
(John  ix.  22);  on  one  occasion  officers  had  been  sent  to  arrest 
Him  (John  vii.  32);  tumultuous  attempts  had  been  made  to  stone 
Him;  and  there  was  a  general  belief  that  His  enemies  would  not 
rest  till  He  was  removed  out  of  the  way  (John  vii.  25).  But  it 
does  not  appear  that  to  this  time  there  had  been  a  determination 
of  the  Sanhedrin  in  formal  session,  that  He  should  die.  It  is 
questioned  whether  this  was  a  formal  session.  It  certainly  was 
not  a  judicial  one  in  fact,  for  the  Lord  was  not  before  them  for 
trial,  but  judicial  in  effect,  since  His  death  was  then  determined 
on.  The  miracle  at  Bethany,  and  its  great  popular  effect,  brought 
the  matter  to  a  crisis.  The  nation,  in  its  highest  council, 
presided  over  by  the  high  priest,  decided  in  the  most  solemn 
manner  that  the  public  safety  demanded  His  death.  All  that 
now  remained  to  be  done  was  to  determine  how  His  death  could 
be  best  effected,  and  formally  to  condemn  Him. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  how,  in  the  deliberations  of  the  Sanhe- 
drin, truth  and  justice  were  made  wholly  subservient  to  selfish 
policy.  That  Jesus  had  wrought  a  great  and  wonderful  miracle 
at  Bethany,  was  not  denied.  Indeed  it  was  admitted,  and  made 
the  basis  of  their  action  against  Him:  "If  we  let  Him  thus 
alone,  all  will  believe  on  Him."  Still  they  did  not  believe  that 
He  wrought  His  miracles  by  the  power  of  God,  but  ascribed  them 
all  to  a  Satanic  origin,  and  as  wrought  to  deceive  the  people.  But 
on  what  ground  rested  their  fear  that  "the  Romans  would  come 
and  take  away  both  their  place  and  nation  "?  It  seems  plain 
that  they  did  not  look  upon  Jesus  as  one  who,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, could  fulfill  their  Messianic  hopes,  and  establish  a 
victorious  kingdom.     Even  if  all  were  to  believe  on  Him,  and 


Part  VI.]  THE   COUNSEL   OF   CAIAPHAS.  409 

He  should  set  up  Himself  as  King,  He  could  not  resist  the 
Romans.  This  strikingly  shows  how  little  the  impression  made 
by  the  character  of  Jesus,  His  works  and  teachings,  corresponded 
to  the  prevalent  conceptions  of  the  Messiah.  It  was  to  the 
Pharisees  impossible,  that  He,  the  teacher,  the  prophet,  should 
become  the  leader  of  armies,  the  asserter  of  their  national  rights, 
the  warrior  like  David.  They  felt  that  in  Him  their  hopes 
never  could  be  fulfilled.  His  growing  popularity  with  the  peo- 
ple, if  it  led  to  insurrection,  could  only  bring  upon  them  severer 
oppression.  In  this  point  of  view,  it  was  better  that  He  should 
die,  whatever  might  be  His  miraculous  powers,  than  that  all 
through  Him  should  perish. 

If,  as  the  narrative  plainly  implies,  the  Sanhedrin  held  its 
session  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  knowledge  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Lazarus  reached  it,  the  Lord's  departure  to  Ephraim 
could  not  have  been  long  delayed.  He  could  not  remain  in 
Bethany  without  each  hour  putting  His  life  in  peril.  According 
to  Edersheira  (ii.  326),  He  remained  in  Bethany  Friday  and  Sat- 
urday, and  the  next  day  went  to  Ephraim.  That  He  went  secretly 
to  Ephraim,  appears  from  the  commandment  given  by  the  chief 
priests  and  Pharisees  that  "  if  any  man  knew  where  He  were, 
he  should  show  it,  that  they  might  take  Him."  Yet  the  Twelve 
seem  to  have  accompanied  Him,  or,  which  is  more  probable,  to 
have  gathered  to  Him  there,  and  possibly  Lazarus  was  with 
them.  It  is  not  improbable  that  others,  also,  may  have  resorted 
to  Him.  The  mention  of  Salome  (Matt.  xx.  20)  does  not  show 
that  the  women  with  the  Lord  went  to  Ephraim. 

Of  the  city  Ephraim,  in  which  He  took  refuge,  little  is  known,  and 
different  sites  have  been  assigned  it.  In  Joshua  xviii.  23,  mention  is 
made  of  an  Ophrah  as  one  of  the  cities  of  Benjamin,  and  in  2  Chron- 
icles xiii.  19,  of  an  Ephron,  or  Ephrain,  in  connection  with  Bethel 
and  Jeshanah.  Josephus  '  speaks  of  an  Ephraim  in  connection  with 
Bethela,  or  Bethel.  It  was  a  small  town  lying  in  the  mountainous 
district  of  Judah,  and  was  captnred  by  Vespasian.  Eusebius  mentions 
an  Ephron  as  lying  eight  Roman  miles  north  of  Jerusalem,  but  Jerome,^ 
who  mentions  the  same  place,  puts  it  at  twenty  miles.  Lightfoot 
identifies  the  Ephraim  of  Chronicles,    of  Josephus,  and  of  the  text."^ 


1  War,  iv.  9.  9.  2  Raumer,  171. 

3  So  Tischendorf ,  Wieseler. 


410 


THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD. 


[Part  VI. 


That  the  Ephron  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome  is  the  same  place  can 
scarcely  be  questioned,  and  their  conflicting  statements  as  to  its  dis- 
tance from  Jerusalem  may  be  explained,  as  Robinson  does,  by  the 
supposition  that  the  latter  corrects  the  former.  Wieseler  maintains 
that  Eusebius  is  right.  Proceeding  upon  these  data,  Robinson  thinks 
that  he  finds  the  site  of  Ephraim  in  the  modern  Taiyibeh,  which  is 
situated  about  twenty  Roman  miles  northeast  of  Jerusalem,  and  some 
five  or  six  miles  northeast  of  Bethel,  upon  a  lofty  hill,  overlooking 
all  the  valleys  of  the  Jordan,  and  said  by  Tristram  to  be  "  peculiarly 
isolated  and  secluded,  truly  'the  lonely  Ephraim.'  "  This  identifica- 
tion is  accepted  by  many.'  Ebrard,  however,  denies  that  the  Ephraim 
of  Josephus  can  be  identified  with  that  of  the  Evangelist,  and  places 
the  latter  southeast  from  Jerusalem,  because  Jesus  on  His  way 
from  it  to  Jerusalem  passed  through  Jericho.  Sepp  places  it  in  the 
land  of  Gilead;  Luthardt  regards  its  position  as  doubtful;  Eders- 
heim,  starting  from  the  statement  that  it  was  "near  the  wilder- 
ness," and  finding  this  wilderness  in  the  north  of  Peraea  (see  Luke  viii. 
29),  places  it  east  of  the  Jordan  and  close  to  Galilee.  This  position 
has  this  in  its  favor  that  it  would  have  given  a  safer  retreat. 


February  —  March,  783.     A.  D.  30. 


In  Ephraim  the  Lord  abides  with  the  disciples  till  the 
approach  of  the  Passover.  A  little  before  the  feast, 
many  go  up  out  of  the  country  to  Jerusalem  to  perform 
the  necessary  purifications,  and  there  is  much  discussion 
as  to  the  probability  of  His  presence.  He  leaves  Ephraim, 
and  begins  His  journey  toward  Jerusalem,  passing 
along  the  border  line  of  Samaria  and  Galilee.  Upon  the 
way  He  meets  and  heals  ten  lepers.  Being  asked  by  the 
Pharisees  when  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  come.  He  replies, 
and  adds  the  parable  of  the  unjust  judge.  To  certain 
self-righteous  persons  He  speaks  the  parable  of  the 
Pharisee  and  the  publican.  He  replies  to  the  question  of 
the  Pharisees  respecting  divorce.  Little  children  are 
brought  to  Him,  whom  He  blesses.  As  He  is  journeying, 
a  young  man  follows  Him  to  know  how  he  may  inherit 
eternal  life.  Jesus  bids  him  sell  all  that  he  has  and 
follow  Him,  and  proceeds  to  address  the  disciples  upon 
the  dangers  incident  to  riches.  In  answer  to  Peter,  He 
speaks  of  the  rewards  that  shall  be  given  to  the  Twelve, 
and  to  all  faithful  disciples.  He  adds  the  parable  of  the 
laborers  in  the  vineyard. 


John  xi.  54r-67. 


Luke  xvii.  11-19. 
Luke  xvii.  20-37. 

Luke  xviii.  1-14. 
Matt.  xix.  3-13. 
Mark  x.  2-12. 
Matt.  xix.  13-15. 
Makk  X.  13-16. 
Luke  xviii.  15-30. 
Matt.  xix.   16-30 
Mark  x.  17-31. 

Matt.  xx.  1-16. 


1  So,  Hitter,  Porter,  Lange,  Lichtenstein,  Smith's  Diet,  of  Bible,  Ellicott,  Conde 
Tristram. 


Part  VI  ]  SITE  OF  EPHRAIM.  411 

Supposing  the  Lord  to  have  gone  to  Bethany  —  Bethabara — 
beyond  Jordan,  immediately  after  the  Feast  of  Dedication,  or  in 
the  latter  part  of  December,  and  that  He  remained  there  several 
weeks  before  He  heard  that  Lazarus  was  sick,  we  may  put  His 
departure  to  Ephraim  in  the  latter  part  of  February  or  early  in 
March.  Here  He  continued  till  the  Passover,  which  fell  this 
year  on  the  seventh  of  April.  He  was  thus  at  Ephraim  several 
weeks.  How  was  this  time  spent  ?  It  is  said  by  some,' that  He 
may  have  made  excursions  to  the  neighboring  villages,  or  even 
to  the  Jordan  valley.  But,  as  His  object  in  seeking  this  secluded 
spot  on  the  edge  of  the  wilderness  was  to  avoid  the  observation 
of  His  enemies  till  the  appointed  hour  had  come,  how  could  He 
go  about  the  country  teaching  and  preaching  ?  The  place  of  His ' 
retreat  must  thus  have  come  very  speedily  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  Pharisees.  How  little  the  people  at  large  knew  where  He  was, 
appears  from  the  fact  that  those  who  went  up  early  to  the  feast 
out  of  the  country,-  sought  Him  at  Jerusalem.  Besides,  the  posi- 
tion of  Ephraim,  though  well  fitted  for  seclusion,  was  not  so  for 
teaching.  We  conclude,  then,  as  the  narrative  plainly  implies, 
that  He  was  spending  the  few  days  that  remained  to  Him,  not 
amidst  crowds,  nor  renewing  in  some  scattered  villages  the  labors 
of  His  early  ministry,  but  in  the  society  of  His  disciples,  teach- 
ing them  such  truths  as  they  could  receive,  and  preparing  them 
for  their  labors  after  He  should  Himself  be  taken  from  them. 
Doubtless,  also,  this  period  gave  Him  many  desired  opportuni- 
ties of  solitary  communion  with  His  Father. 

The  fact  that  He  had  been  present  at  the  last  two  feasts  in 
Jerusalem  led  the  people  to  expect  that  Jesus  would  also  be 
present  at  the  Passover.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  as  He  had  with- 
drawn from  public  observation,  and  as  the  Jews  had  endeavored 
to  leai'n  the  place  of  His  concealment  in  order  to  arrest  Him, 
they  thought  it  doubtful  whether  He  would  dare  to  come  and 
brave  their  enmity.  That  many  should  assemble  some  days 
before  the  feast,  was  made  neceesary  by  the  laws  respecting 
purification.^ 


1  So  Robinson,  Har.,  201. 

2  Some  suppose  "  the  country  "  to  be  the  region  about  Ephraim,  so  Baumlein; 
others,  the  country  in  general  as  contrasted  with  Jerusalem;  so  Meyer. 

3  See  Numbers  Ls.  10,  and  Ainsworth's  note;  2  Chron.  xxx.  17. 


412  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LoRD.  [Part  VL 

We  meet  here  the  very  difficult  point,  the  route  by  which  Jesus 
•went  from  Ephraim  to  Bethany.  Upon  this  neither  Matthew,  Mark, 
nor  John  give  any  light.  Does  the  statement  of  Luke  (xvii.  11)  find  its 
right  place  here:  "And  it  came  to  pass  as  He  went  to  Jerusalem, 
that  He  passed  through  the  midst  of  Samaria  and  Galilee"?  (For 
8ia  ixicTov,  Tiscli.,  W.  and  Hort.  have  5ta  iiAcrov  ;  in  R.  V.  margin,  "  be- 
tween Samaria  and  Galilee";  Vulgate,  transibat  per  mediain.)  Some 
think  that  He  passed  through  Samaria  and  Galilee.  But  this  cannot  be 
the  meaning,  as  the  goal  was  Jerusalem  in  the  south,  and  to  go  through 
Samaria,  and  then  Galilee,  was  to  go  north.  Most,  therefore,  under- 
stand the  words,  that  He  went  eastwards  between  the  two  provinces, 
having  Samaria  on  His  right  hand  and  Galilee  on  His  left.  (So  Meyer, 
Godet,  Keil,  Eders. ;  Lightfoot  thinks  that  Persea  may  be  meant  here 
under  the  term  Galilee,  and  refers  to  Luke  iii.  1,  where  Galilee 
includes  Peraia.)  But  how  did  He  reach  the  border  line  from 
E})hraim?  If  we  identify  Ephraim  with  the  modern  Taiyibeh,  the 
distance  to  the  border  was  not  great.  If  He  left  the  former  in  the 
morning,  He  would  reach  the  frontier  in  the  afternoon.  But  what  was 
His  motive  in  thus  going  northward  ?  It  is  said  by  some  that  it  was 
to  meet  a  pilgrim  caravan,  which  having  assembled  in  Galilee,  would 
proceed  along  its  southern  border  down  to  the  Jordan,  and  go  thence 
to  Jerusalem  by  way  of  Jericho.  This  is  not  improbable.  If  His 
Galilean  disciples  and  friends  formed  such  a  caravan,  it  was  easy  for 
Him  to  join  them  with  His  apostles.' 

That  He  was  accompanied  by  others  than  the  Twelve  appears  from 
the  statement  (Matt.  xx.  17)  that  "  He  took  them  apart  in  the  way  "; 
and  from  the  mention  of  Salome  (verse  20).  As  the  time  for  conceal- 
ment was  now  past,  and  it  was  His  j^urp*^^^  ^^  enter  Jerusalem  with 
all  j)ublicity,  it  is  probable  that  He  directed  His  course  from  Ephraim 
northward  with  a  view  to  meet  the  pilgrims  from  Galilee.  So  soon  as 
He  came  into  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  He  would  meet  the  larger  pro- 
cessions that  came  from  the  neighborhood  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee  by  the 
road  down  the  west  bank  of  the  river;  and  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Jericho  would  meet  those  that  crossed  the  ford  from  the  eastern  side. 
What  multitudes  attended  the  feasts,  especially  this  feast,  appears  from 
Josephus."  From  actual  count,  it  was  shown  that  at  a  given  Passover 
256,500  paschal  lambs  were  slain;  and  allowing  ten  persons  to  each 
lamb,  which  was  the  smallest  allowable  number,  the  partici2)ants 
amounted  to  2,565, 000  persons.     Admitting  that  this  number  is  greatly 


'  It  does  not  peem  necessary,  with  McKni^ht,  Edersheim,  and  others  to  put  Eph- 
raim in  northern  Pcnea,  and  near  Galilee;  but  such  a  position  would  afford  an  easier  ex- 
planation of  nis  presence  on  the  frontier. 

2  War,  vi.  9.  3. 


Part  Vi.]  JESUS   DEPARTS   FROM   EPHRAIM.  413 

exaggerated,  there  is  no  question  that  immense  multitudes  were  always 
present ;  and  all  the  roads  leading  to  Jerusalem,  for  several  days  be- 
fore and  after  the  feasts,  were  thronged  with  passengers. 

As  to  the  name  or  position  of  the  village  where  the  ten  lepers  met 
Him,  we  know  nothing  more  than  that  it  was  on  the  border  of 
Samaria.  It  would  seem,  from  the  gathering  together  of  so  many 
lepers  in  one  j^lace  apparently  to  meet  Him,  that  the  Lord's  journey 
was  widely  known.  The  title  by  whicli  they  address  Him,  "Jesus, 
Master,"  indicates  faith  in  Him  as  a  proj^het  rather  than  as  Messiah. 

When  or  where  the  question  of  the  Pharisees  (Luke  xvii.  20) 
respecting  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  was  addressed  to 
Him,  we  have  no  data  to  determine.  It  is  probable  that  He 
was  now  in  Peraea,  and  these  may  have  been  in  fact  the  same 
Pharisees  whom  He  had  rebuked  before.  The  point  of  the 
question  concerns  the  time:  When  wilt  Thou,  now  announcing 
Thyself  as  the  Messiah,  visibly  set  up  Thy  kingdom?  Probably 
it  was  asked  in  mockery,  or  to  tempt  Him;  but,  if  honestly 
meant,  it  could  not  be  answered  as  a  matter  of  mere  chronology. 
The  words,  "The  kingdom  is  within  you  "  (in  the  R.  V.  margin, 
"in  the  midst  of  you  "),  is  best  understood  with  Meyer:  "  It  was 
in  the  midst  of  them  so  far  as  He  the  Messiah  was  and  worked 
among  them;  for  where  He  was  and  worked,  there  was  the 
Messianic  kingdom."  (See  Godet,  who  says,  "almost  all  modern 
interpreters  explain,  'in  the  midst  of  you,'"  though  he  opposes 
it.)  The  words  that  follow  to  the  disciples  (verses  22-37)  contain 
many  expressions  almost  identical  with  those  afterward  em- 
ployed by  Him  in  His  discourses  respecting  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  (Matt,  xxiv),  giving  some  reason  to  believe  that  they 
are  here  recorded  out  of  their  order.  (See,  however,  Meyer, 
in  loco ;  Eders.,  ii.  328,  thinks  them  in  the  right  place  here.) 

The  parable  of  the  unjust  judge  stands  in  obvious  connection 
with  the  discourse  immediately  preceding;  but  that  of  the 
publican  and  the  Pharisee  may  have  been  spoken  later. 

The  question  concerning  divorce  is  found  both  in  Matthew 
and  Mark,  and  is  the  first  event  related  by  them  in  their  account 
of  the  last  journey  from  Galilee  to  Judaea.  Whether  it  belongs 
here,  or  took  place  earlier,  we  have  no  data  to  determine; 
but  it  stands  in  obvious  connection  with  what  is  reported  in 
Luke  xvi.    18.     Being  mentioned,  however,  by  them  both  just 


414  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD,  [Part  VI 

before  the  incident  of  the  blessing  of  the  children,  which  Luke 
also  mentions,  this  seems  the  most  fitting  place.  Perhaps  this 
question  may  refer  to  the  disputes  of  the  Jewish  schools,  one  of 
which  permitted  divorces  for  many  causes,  even  very  slight 
ones;  the  other  only  for  adultery.' 

All  the  Synoptists  mention  the  blessing  of  the  children.  It 
is  plain  that  their  parents  were  those  who  honored  the  Lord  and 
valued  His  blessing;  and  it  shows  that  the  enmity  of  the  Phari- 
sees was  by  no  means  general  among  the  people.  Perhaps  it 
may  point  to  His  near  departure  from  this  scene  of  labor.^  The 
demand  of  Jesus  upon  the  young  ruler  to  sell  all  that  he  had 
and  give  to  the  poor,  was  something  unexpected.  Such  a  de- 
mand was  totally  at  variance  with  the  popular  conceptions  of  the 
Messianic  kingdom,  in  which  all  Jews  confidently  believed  that 
every  form  of  temporal  blessing  would  abound.  The  question 
of  Peter  indicates  how  much  his  thoughts  were  engrossed  with 
the  rewards  and  honors  of  that  kingdom,  which  all  now  thought 
to  be  near  at  hand.  The  prophets  had  spoken  of  a  new  heaven 
and  earth,  and  probably  the  apostles  connected  them  in  some 
indistinct  way  with  "the  regeneration,"  and  the  Messianic  reign. 


March,  783.     A.D.  30. 

Upon  the  way  to  Jerusalem  the  disciples  are  amazed    Mark  x.  32-34. 
and  filled  with  fear,  beholding  Jesus  going  before  them.     Matt.  xx.  17-19. 
He  announces  to  the  Twelve  privately  His  approaching    Luke  xviii.  31-34. 
death   and  resurrection,  but  His  words  are  not  under- 
stood.    Afterward  James  and  John,  with  their  mother    Matt.  xx.  20-28. 
Salome,  come  to  Him,  asking  for  the  seats  of  honor  in    Mark  x.  35-45. 
His  kingdom.     He  denies  their  request.     The  jealousy 
of  the  other  apostles. 

Upon  the  way,  and  probably  soon  after  reaching  the  valley 
of  the  Jordan,  or  at  least  before  arriving  at  Jericho,  He  took 
the  Twelve  apart,  and  announced  to  them,  for  the  third  time, 
His  approaching  death,  but  with  greater  particularity  than  be- 
fore. He  now  speaks  of  the  mode  of  His  death:  that  it  must 
be  by  crucifixion;  that  He  should  be  delivered  unto  chief  priests 
and  scribes,  and  be  by  them  condemned  to  death,  and  delivered 


1  Lightfoot,  on  Matt.  v.  31  and  six.  3;  Eders.,  ii.  333. 
8  See  Oosterzee,  ou  Luke  xviii.  15, 


Part    VI.]      JESUS   ON   THE   WAY   TO   JERUSALEM.  415 

unto  the  Gentiles,  who  should  mock,  and  scourge,  and  kill  Him. 
That  this  announcement  was  made  early  in  the  journey,  appears 
from  the  use  of  the  present  tense:  "  Behold,  we  go  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem." '  Mark  adds,  "And  Jesus  went  before  them;  and  they 
were  amazed;  and  as  they  followed  they  were  afraid."'-' 
(R.  v.,  "  and  they  that  followed  were  afraid.")  As  this 
amazement  and  fear  were  previous  to  His  informing  them 
what  was  about  to  befall  Him,  it  indicates  that  there  was 
something  unusual  in  His  manner,  something  that  awed  and 
appalled  them.  Luke  informs  us  that,  notwithstanding  the 
Lord's  words  were  so  plain  and  express,  "  they  understood  none 
of  these  things,  and  this  saying  was  hid  from  them,  neither 
knew  they  the  things  which  were  spoken."  An  undefined  sense 
that  some  great  and  awful  event  was  impending,  seems  for  a 
little  while  to  have  had  possession  of  their  minds;  but,  even  now, 
of  its  real  nature  they  had  no  just  conceptions.  They  knew 
why  He  had  sought  refuge  in  Ephraim,  and  that  to  go  to 
Jerusalem  was  to  expose  Himself  to  the  deadly  malice  of  the 
Pharisees  (John  xi.  8  and  16),  and  momentary  doubts  of  the 
result  troubled  and  depressed  them.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand, 
they  had  seen  so  many  proofs  of  His  mighty  power  in  Galilee, 
and  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  was  so  fresh  in  their  memories, 
that  they  could  not  believe  that  His  life  could  be  taken  by 
violence,  or  against  His  will.  That  He  should  voluntarily  yield 
Himself  up  as  a  victim,  was  wholly  inconceivable;  and  His 
plainest  words  could  not  change  their  long  preconceived  and 
deeply-rooted  opinions  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Messianic  king- 
dom. All  His  predictions  respecting  His  sufferings  and  death, 
though  explicit  in  the  letter,  they  so  interpreted  as  to  harmonize 
with  a  victory  over  all  His  enemies,  and  a  triumphant  reign.  As 
said  by  Alexander:  "The  correct  understanding  does  not  de- 
pend upon  the  plainness  of  the  language,  but  upon  the  principle 
of  interpretation." 

A  striking  commentary  upon  Luke's  statement,  that  the  dis- 


1  See  Lichtenstein,  370. 

*  Meyer,  following  a  difEerent  reading,  makes  two  parties:  some  who  remained 
behind  in  their  amazement,  and  others  who  followed  Him,  but  with  fear.  See  R.  V. 
margin.  Keil  distinguishes  the  two  parties:  the  first,  the  Twelve;  th?  second,  Qis 
disciples  among  the  crowd  following  Him. 


416  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part    VI. 

ciples  understood  none  of  the  Lord's  words,  is  found  in  the 
request  of  Salome  that  her  two  sons,  James  and  John,  might 
fill  the  highest  places  in  His  kingdom.  It  has  already  been 
noted,  that  the  sending  out  of  the  Seventy,  and  the  peculiar 
character  of  this  journey  to  Jerusalem,  had  awakened  strong 
expectations  that  the  day  was  very  near  wlien  He  would 
openly  and  successfully  assert  His  claims  to  the  throne  of  His 
father  David.  Perhaps  Salome  and  her  sons  may  have  had  in 
mind  His  promise,  spoken  earlier  (Matt.  xix.  28),  that  the 
twelve  apostles  should  sit  in  the  regeneration  on  twelve  thrones, 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  and  believed  that  the  time 
for  its  fulfillment  was  near.  The  request  was  made  by  her  in 
person,  but  her  sons  were  also  present,  and  the  Lord's  reply  was 
addressed  to  them.  Probably  it  was  made  some  few  hours  after 
He  had  spoken  to  the  Twelve  of  His  sufferings  and  death;  per- 
haps when  they  were  drawing  near  to  Jericho,  and  had  already 
been  joined  by  troops  of  the  pilgrims  on  their  way  to  the  feast. 
The  excitement  of  the  occasion,  the  tumult  of  the  multitude, 
and  the  joy  and  honor  with  which  the  Lord  was  greeted,  would 
naturally  drive  from  their  minds  the  sombre  impression  of  the 
earlier  part  of  the  journey.  Wliat  the  expectations  of  most  of 
those  who  accompanied  Him  were,  clearly  appears  from  Luke's 
words  (xix.  11):  "They  thought  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
should  immediately  appear."  Under  these  circumstances,  it 
was  not  strange  that  Salome  and  her  sons  should  present  their 
request. 

March,  783.    A.  D.  30. 

As  in  company  with  the  crowd  of  pilgrims  He  ap-    Luke  xviii.  35-43. 
preaches  Jericho,  two  blind  men,  sitting  by  the  way-    Matt.  xx.  29-34. 
side   begging,  address  Him   as  the  Son  of  David,  be-    Mark   x.  46-52. 
seeching  Him  to  restore  their   sight.     He  heals  them, 
and  they  follow   Him.     Eutering  Jericho,   He    meets    Luke  xix.  1-10. 
Zacchaeus,  and  goes  to  his  bouse,  where  He  remains 
during  the  night.     In  the  morning,  when  about  to  de- 
part, He  speaks  to  the  people  the  parable  of  the  pounds.     Luke  xix.  11-28. 
He  leaves  Jericho,  and  the  same  day  reaches  Bethany, 
near  Jerusalem. 

The  account  of  the  healing  of  the  blind  men  is  differently  re 
lated  by  the  Synoptists,  both  as  to  the  place  and  the  number  of 


Part  VI.]      HEALING   OF  BLIND   MEN  AT  JERICHO.  417 

persons.  Matthew  and  Mark  make  it  to  have  taken  place  as 
Jesus  was  leaving  Jericho;  Luke,  as  He  was  entering  it. 
Matthew  mentions  two  blind  men;  Mark  and  Luke  mention 
but  one.     Of  these  discrepancies  there  are  several  solutions  : 

1st.  —  That  three  blind  men  were  healed :  the  one  mentioned 
by  Luke,  as  He  approached  the  city;  the  two  mentioned  by 
Matthew,  as  He  was  leaving  the  city.'  Some,  as  Osiander  and 
Pound,  make  four  to  have  been  healed. 

2d  —  That  one  was  healed  on  His  entry  into  the  city,  the  other, 
on  His  departure.^  According  to  this  solution,  Matthew  com- 
bines the  two  in  one,  and,  deeming  the  exact  time  and  place  un- 
important, represents  them  as  both  occurring  at  the  departure  of 
the  Lord  from  the  city. 

3d.  —  That  two  were  healed,  and  both  at  His  entry;  but 
one  being  better  known  than  the  other,  he  only  is  mentioned  by 
Mark  and  Luke.' 

Ath.  —  That  one  of  the  blind  men  sought  to  be  healed  as  the 
Lord  approached  the  city,  but  was  not;  that  the  next  morning, 
joining  himself  to  another,  they  waited  for  Him  by  the  gate  as 
He  was  leaving  the  city,  and  were  both  healed  together.  Luke, 
in  order  to  preserve  the  unity  of  his  narrative,  relates  the  heal- 
ing of  the  former  as  if  it  had  taken  place  on  the  afternoon  of 
the  entry.* 

bth. —  That  only  one  was  healed,  and  he  when  the  Lord  left 
the  city;  and  that  Matthew,  according  to  his  custom,  uses  the 
plural  where  the  other  Evangelists  use  the  singular.' 

Qth. —  That  Luke's  variance  with  Matthew  and  Mark,  in  re- 
gard to  place,  may  be  removed  by  interpreting  (xviii.  35)  "  as 
He  was  come  nigh  to  Jericlio,"  in  the  general  sense  of  being 
near  to  Jericho,  but  without  deHning  whether  He  was  approach- 
ing to  it  or  departing  from  it.  Its  meaning  here  is  determined 
by  Matthew  and  Mark:  He  was  leaving  the  city,  but  still  near 
to  it.  Keil's  solution  is  that  Luke  puts  the  healing  of  the  blind 
man  before  the  entrance  into  the  city  in  order  that  he  may  give 


1  Kitto,  Augustine,  Morrison. 

*  Lightfoot,  Ebrard,  Krafft,  Tischendorf,  Wieseler,  Bucher,  Lex,  Neander. 
^  Doddridge,  Newcome,  Lichtenstein.  Friedlieb. 

■*  Bengel,  Stier,  Trench,  Ellicott.    See  a  modification  of  this  view  in  McKnight, 
andanoiher  in  Lfingp  on  Matt.  xx.  30. 
6  Oosterzee  on  Luke;  Da  Costa. 

18* 


418  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI. 

the  account  of  Zacchseus  and  the  parable  following  without  inter- 
ruption.' 

Other  solutions  of  the  discrepancy  in  regard  to  place  have 
been  given;  as  by  Newcome,'^  tliat  Jesus  spent  several  days  at 
Jericho,  that  He  went  out  of  the  city  as  mentioned  by  Matthew 
and  Mark,  for  a  temporary  purpose,  and  that  on  His  return  He 
healed  the  blind  men;  by  McKnight,^  preferred  by  Farrar,  that 
there  were  two  Jerichos,  old  and  new,  and  the  blind  men,  sitting 
on  the  road  between  them,  were  healed  as  the  Lord  was  depart- 
ing from  one  and  entering  the  other;  by  Paulus  (iii.  44),  that 
there  was  a  multitude  of  pilgrims  with  Jesus,  and  that  the  front 
ranks  of  the  procession  were  leaving  the  city  as  He  was  entering 
it.  Riddle  refers  Luke  xviii.  35  to  the  first  approach  to  the  city, 
and  xix.  1,  to  the  final  departure  from  it. 

Olshausen  and  Riggenbach  decline  to  attempt  to  harmonize 
the  accounts,  regarding  the  differences  as  unimportant.  Meyer 
and  DeWette  suppose  the  Evangehsts  to  have  followed  different 
traditions,  and  find  the  discrepancies  invincible.  With  them 
Alford  agrees  in  substance:  "  The  only  fair  account  of  such  dif- 
ferences is,  that  they  existed  in  the  sources  from  which  each  Evan- 
gelist took  his  narrative."  The  supposition  that  two  were  healed 
separately,  or  that  there  were  two  distinct  miracles  combined  by 
Matthew  in  one,  he  characterizes  as  "  perfectly  monstrous,  and 
would  at  once  destroy  the  credit  of  Matthew  as  a  truthful  re- 
lator." Norton  (ii.  302)  observes:  "The  difference  in  the  ac- 
counts of  the  Evangelists  is  entirely  unimportant  except  as  serv- 
ing to  show  that  they  are  independent  historians;  and  it  is  idle 
to  ti'y  to  make  them  agree  by  the  forced  suppositions  to  which 
some  commentators  have  resorted."  It  is  most  probable  that 
two  were  healed,  though  one  only  is  mentioned  by  Mark  and 
Luke. 

Jericlio  —  This  city  in  the  Lord's  day  was  one  of  much  importance, 
probably  among  the  Judaean  cities  second  only  to  Jerusalem.  It  was 
of  great  antiquity  because  of  its  position,  being  on  the  west  side  of 
the  large  plain  of  the  Jordan,  whicli,  well  watered  by  the  large  fount 
ain  and  by  streams  from  the  western  hills,  was  very  productive.     The 


1  Grotlus  on  Matt.  xx.  .30;  Clericus,  Diss,  ii.,  Canon  vi.;  Pilkington,  cited  in  Town 
send,  Robinson,  Jarvis,  Owen. 

2Har.,275.  3  Har.,  ii.  93. 


Part  VI.]  JESUS  AT   HOUSE   OF  ZACCH^US.  419 

positioQ  of  the  city  was  several  times  changed :  its  original  site  was 
probably  near  Elisha's  fountain  (2  Kings  ii.  19-23)  — 'Ain  es-Sultan — 
the  Jericho  of  the  Roman  period  more  to  the  south ;  the  modern  Jeri- 
cho —  Es-Riha  —  is  about  two  miles  southeast.  "  Back  of  the  fount- 
ain," says  Robinson,  "  rises  up  the  tall  and  perpendicular  face  of  the 
mountain  Quarautana."  Another  fountain  —  'Ain  Duk  —  which  is 
said  to  be  as  large  or  larger  than  the  first,  lies  some  two  or  three 
miles  northwest  of  it.  Destroyed  by  Joshua,  Jericho  was  subse- 
quently rebuilt,  and  here  in  Elisha's  day  were  the  schools  of  the 
prophets  (2  Kings  ii.  5).  It  was  a  favorite  city  of  Herod  the  Great; 
here  he  built  a  hippodrome  and  here  he  died  (Joseph.,  Antiq.,  xxii.  10) ; 
here  his  son  Archelaus  built  or  rebuilt  a  palace.  The  region  being 
rich  in  palms,  the  city  was  sometimes  called  "the  city  of  palms." 
Most  tropical  fruits  flourished  there,  and  especially  balsams  from 
which  large  revenues  were  derived.  This  Jericho  had  considerable 
commercial  importance,  and  lying  on  the  caravan  route  from  Damas- 
cus, was  a  place  of  toll.  Being  near  the  mountain  passes  leading  up 
to  Jerusalem  and  Bethel,  and  commanding  the  lower  fords  of  the 
Jordan,  it  was  of  much  consequence  in  a  military  poir^t  of  view,  and 
here  the  Romans  in  the  Lord's  day  had  a  garrison.  It  was  also  the 
last  station  through  which  the  pilgrims  passed  who  came  from  Galilee 
by  way  of  the  Jordan  valley  and  then  from  Peroea. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  Jericho  was  one  of  the  cities  where  many 
priests  resided  at  this  time ;  about  one-half  of  the  whole  numl^er  is 
said  to  have  dwelt  permanently  in  Jerusalem,  and  a  large  part  of  the 
residue  in  Jericho.'  Probably  the  same  feeling  of  dislike  to  the  Lord 
that  prevailed  among  the  priests  at  Jerusalem,  prevailed  here.  There 
is  no  mention  of  any  ministry  by  the  Lord  there  except  at  this  time. 

The  present  Jericho  is  composed  of  hovels  inhabited  by  some  sixty 
families.  Robinson  (ii.  554)  speaks  of  it  as  "the  most  miserable  and 
filthy  that  he  saw  in  Palestine."  Very  recently  the  Russians  have  be- 
gun some  building  here. 

None  of  the  Evangelists  state  at  what  time  of  the  day  Jesus 
reached  Jericho,  but  it  was  probably  in  the  afternoon.  The 
distance  to  Jerusalem,  about  seventeen  miles,  and  the  nature  of 
the  country  through  which  the  road  passed,  may  have  made  it 
difficult  or  impossible  to  go  on  to  Bethany  that  night,  and  there 
was  no  intervening  village  where  they  could  encamp.  That 
Jesus  did  spend  the  night  at  Jericho  appears  from  His  words  to 
Zacchgeus  (Luke  xix.  5):   "To-day  I  must  abide  at  thy  house," 


1  Lightfoot,  Temple  Service,  49;  Eders.,  The  Temple,  59. 


420  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  j^Parv  VL 

and  from  the  murmurings  of  the  people  (verse  7):  ''That  He 
was  gone  to  be  a  guest  (icaraXvaai)  with  a  man  that  is  a  sinner.'" 
This  visit  of  the  Lord  to  the  house  of  a  publican,  although  a 
chief  among  his  class  and  rich,  did  not  escape  strong  animad- 
version. It  was  regarded  by  the  people  at  large,  and  perhaps 
also  by  some  of  His  own  disciples,  as  an  act  unworthy  of  His 
high  claims.  In  popular  estimation,  publicans,  whose  calhng  so 
odiously  reminded  them  of  Roman  domination,  were  no  fit  hosts 
for  Him  whom  they  fondly  beheved  to  be  now  on  His  way  to 
Jerusalem  to  proclaim  Himself  the  King.  The  conversation 
between  the  Lord  and  Zacchseus  (verses  8-10)  apparently  took 
place  in  the  court  of  his  house,  or  near  the  entrance,  where  the 
crowd  had  followed.  Olshausen  supposes  it  to  have  been  on  the 
morning  of  His  departure,  but  there  is  r.o  good  ground  for  this. 
It  is  not  certain  where  the  parable  of  the  nobleman  (verses  11- 
27)  was  spoken,  but  it  would  seem  from  the  connection  that  He 
was  still  standing  by  the  door  of  Zaccliaeus'  house.^  Some,  who 
suppose  that  He  merely  passed  a  few  hours  with  Zacchaeus,  and 
then  journeyed  on  toward  Bethany  the  same  day,  make  all  from 
verse  8  to  27  to  have  been  spoken  at  His  departure.'  We  need 
not,  however,  understand  verse  28  as  meaning  that  immediately 
after  He  had  uttered  the  parable,  He  went  up  to  Jerusalem. 

Of  Zacchaeus  little  more  is  known  than  is  here  related.  He 
was  not,  as  some  have  said,  a  heathen,  but,  as  appears  both  from 
his  name  and  from  verse  9,  of  Jewish  descent.*  He  was  a  chief 
publican  or  head  collector  of  the  taxes,  having  the  other  publi- 
cans of  that  region  under  him.  Jericho  was  rich,  in  balsams, 
and  therefore  much  toll  was  collected  here.  According  to  tra- 
dition, Zacchaeus  became  bishop  of  Csesarea.  A  tower,  standing 
in  the  modern  village  of  Riha,  is  still  shown  as  the  "  house  of 
Zacchaeus." 


1  For  the  usage  of  KaraACa-ac,  see  Luke  ix.  12;   ho  Meyer,  AJford,  Greswell,  Lich 
tenstein,  T.  G.  Lex. 

2  So  Meyer,  Lichtenetein.  •       ^  Qosterzee,  in  loco;  Stier,  iv.  318. 
*  8o  Meyer,  Alford. 


PART  VII. 

FKOM  THE  ARRIVAL  AT  BETHANY  TO  THE  RESURRECTION ;  OR, 
FROM  MARCH  31st  [8th  NISAN]  TO  APRIL  9th  [17th  NISAN],  783. 
A.  D.  30. 

This  period,  from  the  arrival  at  Bethany  to  the  resurrection, 
Qay  be  divided  into  two  partsj  the  first  embracing  the  close  of 
the  Lord's  active  ministry;  the  second,  the  paschal  supper,  His 
arrest,  and  the  events  following  till  He  left  the  sepulchre.  His 
work  in  Jerusalem  was  in  substance  of  the  same  nature  as  in 
Peraea  —  a  witness  to  Himself  as  the  Messiah.  But  He  was  now 
in  a  new  position.  He  stood  face  to  face  with  His  declared  ene- 
mies, who  had  already  condemned  Him  to  death,  and  were  wait- 
ing only  for  a  fitting  opportunity  to  carry  their  detei'inination  into 
effect.  He  would  that  Caiaphas  and  ail  the  rulers  should  know 
that  "  the  one  man  who  should  die  for  the  people  "  (John  xi.  50), 
was  their  King.  He  therefore  enters  the  city  as  the  King,  the 
Son  of  David.  He  goes  into  the  temple,  and  for  the  second 
ime  cleanses  it;  He  asserts  His  prerogative  as  the  Judge  in 
the  symbolical  withering  of  the  fig  tree.  In  His  parables,  He 
teaches  the  rulers  that  they  had  been  false  to  their  trust  as  the 
husbandmen  of  God's  vineyard;  and  that  as  their  fathers  had 
killed  His  prophets  and  messengers,  so  they  were  about  to  kill 
His  Son,  the  Heir;  that  they  would  not  come  to  the  marriage  sup- 
per of  the  King's  Son,  though  all  things  were  ready,  but  were 
despising  the  call  and  would  slay  His  servants.  Thus  He  made 
plain  the  enormity  of  the  crime  they  were  about  to  commit,  one 
far  greater  than  any  which  their  fathers  had  committed  in  killing 
the  prophets ;  and  foretold  that  their  punishment  would  be  as  their 
crime.  God  would  destroy  these  husbandmen,  and  give  the  vine- 
yard to  others;  His  holy  city  would  be  burnt  up,  and  His  ser- 
vants sent  into  the  highways  to  bring  in  the  believing  Gentiles. 
Thus  the  Lord  showed  to  His  enemies  that  He  knew  that  His 
death  was   at   hand,  and  warned   them    of    the  terrible  conse- 

(421) 


422  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  VII. 

quences  to  themselves  and  to  the  nation  of  their  act.  His  mur- 
der, which  they  meant  to  be  for  their  salvation,  would  become 
their  destruction.  At  last,  in  the  audience  of  all  the  people  and 
in  the  temple,  He  pronounced  upon  them  the  seven-fold  woe, 
whose  burden  remains  to  this  day. 

But  while  thus  severe  to  His  unrelenting  enemies,  denounc- 
ing their  iniquity  in  the  majesty  of  His  righteousness,  He  yet 
shows  Himself  to  be  the  Saviour  by  healing  the  lame  and  blind 
who  come  to  Him  in  the  temple.  He  teaches  them  that  the 
scanty  offerings  of  the  very  poorest,  as  seen  in  the  widow's  mite, 
are  acceptable  to  God.  Notwithstanding  the  great  influence 
which  His  enemies  had  over  the  popular  mind,  it  is  plain  that  for 
some  days  He  had  in  a  large  degree  the  sympathy  and  approval 
of  the  people.  It  is  said  by  Luke  that  "  all  the  people  were 
very  attentive  to  hear  Him"';  and  by  Mark,  that  "  they  sought 
to  lay  hold  on  Him,  but  feared  the  people " ;  and  by  John,  that 
"  among  the  chief  rulers  also  many  believed  on  Him,"  but  were 
afraid  to  confess  Him.  Apparently,  it  needed  but  a  word  from 
Him  to  have  set  the  nation  ablaze.  But  He  knew  that  the 
hour  of  the  kingdom  had  not  yet  come;  and  now,  as  in  the 
wilderness,  He  would  not  take  His  throne  till  given  Him  by  His 
Father's  hand.  To  His  disciples  He  gave  but  little  direct  teach- 
ing, though  His  answers  to  the  questions  of  the  scribes  and  Sad- 
duces,  and  His  parables,  must  have  been  full  of  instruction  for 
them.  But  the  discourses  especially  addressed  to  them,  the  pro- 
phetic opening  of  the  future  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the  people; 
the  promise  of  His  return,  the  tribulation  that  should  precede  it, 
and  the  parables  descriptive  of  several  phases  of  the  judgment; 
and  also,  the  promise  of  the  Comforter  to  abide  during  His  per- 
sonal absence,  were  probably  very  imperfectly  understood  at  the 
time,  nor  could  they  have  apprehended  with  any  clearness  the 
meaning  of  His  great  prayer  of  intercession. 

Friday,  31st  March,  8th  Nisan  —  Saturday,  1st  April, 

9th  Nisan. 

Arriving  at  Bethany,  He  abides  there  for  the  night.  John  xii.  1-9. 

The  next  day  He  sups  with  Simon,  the  leper  —  Lazarus,  Matt.  xxvl.  6-13 

Martha,  and  Mary  being  present.     Here  He  is  anointed  Mark  xiv.  3-9. 
by  Mary,  while  Judas  and  others  are  angry  at  so  great 


Part  VIL] 


ARRIVAL   AT   BETHANY. 


423 


waste.     At  even,  many  come  out  of  Jerusalem  to  see 

Hini  and  Lazarus.     The  rulers  iu  the  city  hearing  this,    John  xii.  10,  11. 

consult  how  they  may  put  Lazarus  also  to  death. 

The  date  of  the  arrival  at  Bethany  is  to  be  determined  from 
the  statement  of  John  (xii.  1),  that  He  came  "six  days  before 
the  Passover."  But  how  shall  these  six  days  be  reckoned  ? 
Shall  both  extremes,  the  day  of  His  arrival  and.  the  first  day  of 
the  Passover,  be  included,  or  both  excluded  ?  or  one  included 
and  one  excluded?  The  latter  mode  of  computation  is  more 
generally  received.  Adopting  this  mode,  we  reckon  from  the 
Passover  exclusive  to  the  day  of  arrival  inclusive..  But  here  a 
new  question  meets  us  :  What  day  shall  be  reckoned  as  the  first 
of  the  Passover,  the  14th  or  15th  Nisan?  The  language  of 
Moses  is  (Levit.  xxiii.  5),  "  In  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first 
month  at  even  is  the  Lord's  Passover."  Counting  backward 
from  the  fourteenth  and  excluding  it,  the  sixth  day,  or  the  day 
of  the  arrival  at  Bethany,  was  the  8th  Nisan.  "What  day  of  the 
week  was  this  ?  If  the  fourteenth  fell  on  Thursday,  the  eighth 
was  on  Friday  preceding;  if  on  Friday,  the  eighth  was  on 
Saturday,  or  the  Jewish  Sabbath.* 


Robin- 

The 14th  on 

Modem 

Jewish 

The  14th  on 

Gres- 

son. 

Thursday. 

Time. 

Time. 

Friday. 

well. 

6 

Friday 

March  31 

Nisan  8 

Saturday 

6 

5 

6 

Saturday 

April  1 

"      9 

Sunday 

6 

5 

4 

5 

Sunday 

"      2 

"     10 

Monday 

5 

4 

3 

4 

Monday 

"     3 

"     11 

Tuesday 

4 

3 

2 

3 

Tuesday 

"     4 

"     12 

Wedn'sd'y 

3 

2 

1 

2 

Wedn'sd'y 

"     5 

"     13 

Thursday 

2 

1 

•• 

1 

Thursday 
Friday 

"     6 

"     7 

"     14 
"     15 

Friday 

1 

:• 

Owing  to  these  differences  in  the  modes  of  computation,  very 
different  results  are  reached  by  harmonists.  Robinson,  includ- 
ing both  extremes,  and  counting  from  the  fourteenth,  or  Thurs- 
day, makes  Him  to  have  arrived  on  Saturday,  the  ninth. 
Strong,  computing  the  same  way,  but  making  the  fourteenth  tc 
fall  on  Friday,  makes  the  arrival  on  Sunday,  the  ninth.     Gres 


1  So  Meyer,  Alford. 


424  THE  T.IFE:  Of  Our  lord.  [Part  VII 

well,  including  one  extreme,  and  placing  the  Passover  on  Fri- 
day, the  fourteenth,  makes  it  to  have  been  on  Saturday.  Most, 
however,  making  the  fourteenth  Thursday,  place  it  on  Friday 
the  eighth.'  And  this  seems,  on  other  grounds,  the  most  likely. 
That  Jesus  would,  without  necessity,  travel  on  the  Sabbath, 
we  cannot  suppose;  much  less  that  He  would  go  on  that  day 
from  Jericho  to  Bethany,  a  distance  of  fourteen  or  fifteen  miles.^ 
Caspari  thinks  that  He  remained  with  Zacchaeus  at  Jericho  over 
the  Sabbath,  and  on  Sunday  went  to  Bethany.  Some,  as  Robin- 
son, suppose  that  He  went  on  Saturday  only  a  Sabbath  day's 
journey;  but  that  He  should  have  come  on  Friday  so  near  to 
Bethany  and  then  have  encamped,  to  finish  the  journey  after 
sunset  of  the  Sabbath,  is  not  probable.  The  supposition  of 
Greswell  that  He  spent  the  night  at  the  house  of  Zacchaeus,  who 
lived  between  Jericho  and  Bethany,  and  went  on  to  Bethany  the 
next  day,  is  wholly  without  proof,  and  besides,  does  not  meet 
the  difficulty.  We  infer  that  He  did  journey  directly  from 
Jericho  to  Bethany;  first,  from  the  fact  that  the  whole  interven- 
ing country  is  a  wilderness,  without  city  or  village,  where  no 
one  would,  without  necessity,  spend  the  night;  second,  that  He 
was  with  the  crowd  of  pilgrims,  whose  course  was  direct  to 
Jerusalem,  and  who  would  naturally  so  arrange  their  movements 
as  to  reach  it  before  the  Sabbath.  From  Matthew  (xxi.  1)  and 
Mark  (xi.  1)  it  might  be  inferred  that  the  Lord  went  on  at  once 
to  Jerusalem,  without  stopping  at  Bethany,  as  said  by  John. 
But  the  silence  of  the  Synoptists  is  not  a  contradiction;  it  does 
not  exclude  such  a  stop.  All  that  took  place  from  the  departure 
from  Jericho  to  the  arrival  at  the  Mount  of  Olives  is  passed  over. 
There  is  nothing  to  forbid  us  to  insert  a  stop  at  Bethany  for  a 
night  and  day,  and  longer,  if  we  have  other  sources  of  informa- 
tion. 

"We  can  easily  understand  why  the  Lord  should  desire  to 
stop  at  Bethany  rather  than  go  on  to  the  city.  Here  He  foiind 
repose  and  peace  in  a  household  whose  members  were  bound 
to  Him  by  the  strongest  ties;  and  here,  in  seclusion  and  quiet 
He  could  prepare  Himself  for  the  trials  and  anguish  of  the 


1  Friedlieb.  Bucher,  Wieseler,  Lichtenstein,  Tholuck,  Keil. 

2  Wieseler,  378. 


Part  VII.]  SUPPER   AT   BETHANY.  425 

coming  week;  and  this  continued  to  be  His  home  till  His 
arrest. 

The  distance  from  Jericho  to  Jerusalem  is,  according  to 
Joseph  us,  a  hundred  and  fifty  furlongs;  and  from  the  Jor- 
dan to  Jericho,  sixty.  From  Jericho  to  Bethany  is  about  fifteen 
miles;  and  all  travellers  agree  in  describing  the  way  as  most 
diflBcult  and  dreary. 

It  is  much  disputed  when  the  supper  was  made  for  the 
Lord.  John  merely  says,  xii.  1 :  "  Then  Jesus,  six  days  before  the 
Passover,  came  to  Bethany  .  .  .  there  they  made  Him  a  supper." 
This  does  not  determine  whether  the  supper  was  upon  the  day 
of  His  arrival,  or  the  next,  or  even  later;  still  the  more  obvious 
interpretation  is,  that  it  was  that  day,  or  the  next.  He  also  gives 
us  another  note  of  time,  in  verse  12:  "On  the  next  day  much 
people  .  .  .  .  took  branches  of  palm  trees." 

But  to  what  is  this  "  next  day  "  related?  to  the  events  imme- 
diately preceding  (verses  9,  10)  —  the  visit  of  many  of  the  Jews 
to  Bethany  and  the  consultation  of  the  chief  priests  —  or  to  the 
day  of  His  arrival  at  Bethany;  or  to  the  supper?  If  to  the  con- 
sultation of  the  priests,  as  by  Friedlieb,  the  day  is  undetermined ; 
if  to  the  day  of  His  arrival,  as  by  Meyer,  the  supper  must  have 
been  on  the  evening  of  that  day;  if  to  the  feast,  as  by  M.  and  M., 
we  are  still  uncertain.  Those  who  put  His  arrival  at  Bethany 
on  Saturday  or  on  Sunday,  put  the  supper  on  the  evening  of  the 
same  day;  but  most  of  those  who  put  the  arrival  on  Friday,  put 
the  supper  on  the  evening  of  the  next  day,  or  Sabbath  evening. 
And  this  seems  most  probable  if  we  understand  the  words, 
"  There  they  made  Him  a  supper,"  to  mean  that  it  was  a  supper 
given  specially  in  His  honor,  and  not  an  ordinary  repast. 
It  is  so  understood  by  Westcott:  "They,  the  people  of  the  vil- 
lage " ;  and  by  Godet,  who  connects  the  "  therefore  "  —  ovv  —  of 
verse  second  with  the  mention  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  in 
the  first  verse.  In  this  case,  some  time  would  be  needed  for 
preparation,  and  this  was  gained  if  the  feast  was  on  the  day  fol- 
lowing His  arrival.  We  can  also  thus  easily  explain  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Jews  from  Jerusalem,  the  sojourn  of  the  Lord  at 
Bethany  over  the  Sabbath  giving  opportunity  for  all  who  wished 
to  visit  Him. 


49C  THE   LIFE   OP   OUR   LORD.  [Part  Vll. 

But  the  more  common  opinion  is,  that  the  supper  was  given 
either  by  the  family  of  Lazarus,  or  by  Simon  the  leper.  That 
it  was  at  the  house  of  Simon  is  said  by  Mark  (xiv.  3),  and  the 
more  natural  understanding  is,  that  it  was  made  by  him.  It 
is  in  favor  of  this  that  Lazarus  is  mentioned  as  "  one  that  sat 
at  meat  with  Jesus,"  apparently  one  of  the  invited  guests;  for  if 
the  supper  had  been  given  by  himself  or  by  his  sisters,  his  pres- 
ence would  have  been  taken  as  a  matter  of  course.  But  this  is  by 
no  means  convincing;  even  if  at  his  own  table  the  peculiar  position 
in  which  he  stood  as  one  raised  from  the  dead,  would  cause  special 
mention  of  him.  That  "  Martha  served,"  does  not  show  that 
she  was  in  her  own  house;  her  feeling  of  gratitude  would  impel 
her  to  render  her  service  in  the  house  of  a  friend  or  neighbor. 
There  is  nothing  that  enables  us  to  decide  positively  where  the 
supper  was  given;  Meyer,  who  supposes  it  to  have  been  made 
by  Martha  on  the  evening  of  the  day  of  His  arrival,  describes  it 
as  only  "  the  usual  domestic  entertainment  a  little  more  richly 
set  forth."  Of  this  Simon  nothing  is  known  but  what  is  implied 
in  the  name  "  leper."  He  is  generally  supposed  to  have  been  healed 
by  the  Lord.  One  tradition  makes  him  to  have  been  the  father 
of  Lazarus;  another,  the  husband  of  Martha  (Winer,  ii.  464). 

We  meet  here  the  question  whether  the  supper  mentioned  by 
Matthew  (xxvi.  6-13)  and  Mark  (xiv.  3-9)  is  identical  with  that 
of  John  (xii.  2-8.)  They  have  all  in  common  an  anointing  of 
the  Lord,  but  differ  as  to  the  time;  John  putting  this  supper  six 
days  before  Passover,  the  Synoptists  two  days.  Lightf oot  makes 
them  on  this  ground  to  be  distinct :  one  given  by  Lazarus  on  the 
evening  of  the  Sabbath,  the  9th  Nisan ;  the  other,  given  by  Simon 
on  Tuesday  evening,  the  12th  Nisan.'  Most  identify  the  two, 
but  do  not  agree  as  to  the  time,  some  affirming  that  John  puts 
it  in  its  right  order,  and  that  the  Synoptists  mention  it  later  only 
for  the  purpose  of  explanation;  others,  that  John  anticipates  it, 
and  that  the  Synoptists  have  the  right  order.''  A  close  examination 
of  Matthew  and  Mark  shows  us  that  their  account  of  the  supper 


1  Clericus,  A.  Clarke,  McKnight,  Wliitby,  make  them  distinct.  See  contra 
Michaelis,  in  Townsend,  part  v.  note  37. 

2  For  John's  order  the  great  majority  of  harmonists  ;  for  that  of  Matthew  and 
Mark :  Bynaeus,  Nevvcome,  Da  Costa,  Wichelaus,  ROpe,  McClellan ;  some  put  it  ou 
Wednesday  evening,  so  Rob.;  but  see  Riddle,  Har.,  237. 


Part  VII.J  SECOND   ANOINTING   OF  JESUS.  427 

is  brought  iu  parenthetically.'  Two  days  before  the  feast  of  the 
Passover,  the  chief  priests  and  elders  hold  a  council  at  the 
palace  of  Caiaphas  the  high  priest,  and  consult  how  they  may 
kill  Jesus.  They  dare  not  arrest  Him  openly  and  with  violence, 
but  will  do  it  by  subtlety;  yet,  even  this  they  fear  to  do  during 
the  feast.  The  result  of  their  consultation  thus  is,  that  the 
arrest  be  postponed  till  the  feast  is  past,  or,  as  some  say,  that 
it  be  made  before  the  feast.  But  the  Lord  had  declared,  that 
after  two  days  was  the  Passover,  and  then  He  should  be  betrayed 
to  be  crucified.  Matthew  and  Mark,  therefore,  proceed  to  show 
how  the  Lord's  words  were  fulfilled  through  the  treachery  of 
Judas,  and  the  priests  and  elders  made  to  change  their  resolution. 
This  apostate,  coming  to  the  priests,  offers  to  betray  Him  into 
their  hands,  and  will  do  it  so  soon  as  an  opportunity  presents. 
Thus  the  matter  is  left  between  Judas  and  them,  and  they  await 
his  action. 

Turning  now  to  the  account  of  the  supper,  we  ask  why  it  is 
tlius  interposed  between  the  consultation  of  the  priests  and  the 
action  of  Judas?  Plainly,  that  it  may  explain  his  action.  He 
was  offended  that  so  much  money  should  be  wasted  at  the 
anointing  of  the  Lord,  and  in  his  covetousness,  as  here  revealed, 
we  find  the  explanation  of  his  subsequent  treachery.  But  it  is 
said  that  neither  Matthew  nor  Mark  makes  any  special  mention 
of  Judas  at  the  supper,  and,  therefore,  give  no  explanation  of 
his  treachery.  They  say  only  that  certain  of  the  disciples  were 
displeased.  It  must  be  admitted  that,  had  we  not  the  narrative 
of  John,  it  would  not  be  obvious  why  they  should  mention  this 
supper  in  this  connection.  There  may  be  some  reason  unknown 
to  us  why  they  omit  the  name  of  Judas  as  the  one  chiefly 
offended.  Yet,  even  with  this  omission,  an  impartial  reader 
could  hardly  fail  to  infer  that  to  the  supper  at  Bethany  we  should 
trace  the  immediate  origin  of  the  treachery  they  relate.  Some, 
however,  think  the  supper  to  be  mentioned  here  upon  other 
grounds,^  perhaps  because  of  the  anointing,  of  which  McClellan 
speaks  "  as  a  memorable  act  of  faith  in  the  coming  Passion." 
There  is  nothing  in  the  language  of  Matthew  or  Mark  which 


1  Wieseler,  Stier,  Greswell,  Lewin,  Ellicott,  and  many. 
*  Ebrard,  474;  Strong,  Har.,  note  51. 


428  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  YTI 

necessarily  implies  that  this  supper  took  place  two  days  before 
the  Passover,  for  the  statement  of  the  former  (verse  14),  "  Then 
Judas  .  .  .  went  unto  the  chief  priests,"  does  not  connect 
the  time  of  his  visit  with  the  supper,  but  with  their  council 
(verses  3-5).  (So  Keil.)  All  between  verses  6-13  comes  in 
parenthetically  as  an  explanatory  statement.  But  against  this  it 
is  objected,'  that  Judas  would  not  have  cherished  a  purpose  of 
treachery  four  days  in  his  heart  without  executing  it.  But  the 
betrayal  of  his  Lord  was  not  a  hasty,  passionate  act,  done  in  a 
moment  of  excitement.  It  was  done  coolly,  deliberately,  and  it 
is  this  which  gave  it  its  atrocious  character.  Greswell  remarks 
(iii.  129)  that  "  this  history  is  divisible  into  three  stages,  each  of 
which  has  been  accurately  defined:  the  first  cause  and  concep- 
tion of  his  purpose;  the  overt  step  toward  its  execution;  and 
lastly,  its  consummation.  The  consummation  took  place  in  the 
garden  of  Gethsemane;  the  overt  step  was  the  compact  with  the 
Sanhedrin;  the  first  cause  and  conception  of  the  purpose,  if  they 
are  to  be  traced  up  to  anything  on  record,  must  be  referred  to 
what  happened  at  Bethany." 

We  give  the  following  as  the  probable  order  of  events: 
Jesus,  leaving  Jericho  on  the  morning  of  Friday,  reaches  Beth- 
any in  the  afternoon,  perhaps  about  sunset.  He  leaves  the  pil- 
grims with  whom  He  has  journeyed,  and  who  go  on  to  Jerusa- 
lem, and  with  His  apostles  stops  till  the  Sabbath  should  be 
past;  they  being  probably  received  by  some  of  His  friends,  and 
He  Himself  doubtless  finding  a  home  in  the  dwelling  of  Laza- 
rus and  his  sisters.  The  next  day,  being  the  Sabbath,  is  spent  at 
Bethany;  and  in  the  afternoon  Simon  the  leper  makes  Him  a 
supper,  at  which  His  disciples  and  Lazarus  and  his  sisters  were 
present.  During  the  afternoon  much  people  of  the  Jews, — 
"  the  common  people  of  the  Jews,"  (John  xii.  9)  R.  V.,  —  who  had 
heard  through  the  pilgrims  of  His  arrival,  go  out  to  see  Him 
and  Lazarus;  from  this  desire  to  see  Lazarus  we  may  infer  either 
that  he  had  been  with  Jesus  at  Ephraim,  or  that  those  who  went 
to  see  him  were  pilgrims;  and  many  of  them  believe  on  Him. 
This,  coming  to  the  ears  of  the  chief  priests,  leads  to  a  consulta 
tion  how  Lazarus  may  be  put  to  death  with  Jesu& 


Robinson,  Har.,  210. 


\l'  tI'H^"  ^^  ™''  Ascension.  3.  Russian  Church,  with  High  Belfry. 

J:^^'^X"^^^  ^''"■^  °F  Christ's  weeping  over  4.  Point  where  the  Lord  first  saw  the  City. 

5.  Point  where  He  saw  the  Temple. 


THE  City. 


Part  VII.]  ENTRY   INTO  JERUSALEM.  429 

Sunday,  2d  April,  10th  Nisan,  783.     A.  D.  30. 

Leaving  Bethany,  He  sends  to  an  unnamed  village  for    Matt.  xxi.  1-11. 
an  ass  upon  which  to  ride,  and  sitting  upon  it  He  enters    Mark  xi.  1-10. 
Jerusalem  amidst  the  shouts  of  His  disciples  and  of  the    Luke  xix.  29-44. 
populace.     As  He  looks  upon  the  city  from  the  Mount  of    John  xii.  12-19. 
Olives,  He  weeps  over  it.    All  the  city  is  greatly  moved, 
and  the  Pharisees  desire  Him  to  rebuke  His  disciples.     He 
visits  the  temple;  but,  after  looking  around  Him,  leaves  it    Mark  xi.  11. 
and  goes  out  with  the  Twelve  to  Bethany,  where  He  passes 
the  night. 

The  day  following  the  supper  at  Bethany,  the  Lord  sent  two 
of  Hi.  disciples  to  a  village  which  is  described  as  lying  "over 
againsu  them;"  where  they  would  find  an  ass  and  her  colt,  and 
these  *hey  were  to  bring  to  Him.  Some  suppose  that  the  own- 
ers, if  not  His  disciples,  were  at  least  friendly,  and  learning  for 
whose  use  the  animals  were  desired,  at  once  consented;  others, 
without  sufficient  ground,  suppose  them  to  have  been  strangers, 
and  infer  a  supernatural  knowledge  on  the  Lord's  part  of  the 
ownership  of  the  animals. 

As  this  village  is  generally  supposed  to  be  Bethphage,  and 
Bc^hphage  lay  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives,  some  notice  of  this 
muunt  is  necessary. 

MOUNT  OF  OLIVES  AND  BETHPHAGE. 

Under  the  general  term.  Mount  of  Olives,  is  included  the  long 
ridge  of  chalky  limestone  east  of  Jerusalem,  running  uorth  and  south, 
and  separated  from  the  city  by  the  valley  of  the  Kidron.  This  ridge 
has  three  peaks  or  eminences:  tliat  to  the  north  known  as  Mt. 
Scopus ;  that  in  the  middle,  the  Mount  of  Olives  distinctively  so  called ; 
that  to  the  south,  the  Mount  of  Offence  (Rob. ,  i.  274).  We  are  here  con- 
cerned only  with  the  middle  one,  which  lies  directly  east  of  the  temple. 
This  is  also  divided  into  three  points  or  tops:  the  northern,  bearing 
the  traditional  name  of  Viri  Galilaii  (Acts  i.  12);  the  middle  one, 
where  is  the  Moslem  village  et  Tor  of  some  dozen  houses,  and  the 
Church  of  the  Ascension;  and  the  southern,  enclosed  and  in  possession 
of  the  Roman  Catholics,  who  have  here  two  churches  and  a  convent. 
With  the  northern  one  we  are  interested  as  the  place  where  the 
Twelve  are  said  to  have  stood  when  the  Lord  ascended,  but  it  will  be 
examined  when  the  Ascension  comes  before  us. 

The  central  eminence  has  two  points,  of  wliich  the  eastern  is  the 
highest,  some  2,664  feet  above  the  Mediterranean,  and  about  200  feet 


430  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

:il)()ve  the  temple.  This  point  is  owned  by  the  Russians,  who  have  here 
rebuilt  an  old  church  and  some  small  convents,  planted  trees,  ' '  and 
above  all  erected  a  very  high,  square-shaped  belfry,  standing  alone, 
with  very  many  bells  of  various  sizes,  amongst  which,  is  one  very 
large"  (Qt.  St.,  Oct.,  1889).  Another  cliurch  after  the  Muscovite 
style  has  been  built  lower  down  on  the  west  slope. 

The  road  from  Jericho  to  .Jerusalem  through  Bethany  runs  be- 
tween the  Mount  of  Offence  and  the  Mount  of  Olives,  but  there  is 
another  more  direct  running  over  the  central  summit. 

Bethphage.  — There  are  two  chief  opinions  respecting  the  position 
of  Bethphage:  1.  That  it  was  a  village  distinct  from  Bethany,  but 
adjacent  to  it,  and  the  same  mentioned  by  Matthew  (xxi.  3),  by  Mark 
(xi.  2,)  and  by  Luke  (xix.  30);  2.  That  it  was  an  ecclesiastical  suburb 
of  Jerusalem,  rather  a  district  than  a  village. 

1.  It  may  be  inferred  from  Mark  (xi.  1) :  "  And  when  they  came 
nigh  to  Jerusalem,  unto  Bethphage  and  Bethany  at  the  Mount  of 
Olives,  He  sendeth  forth  two  of  His  disciples,"  and  from  the  like 
expression  in  Luke  (xix.  29),  that  they  were  two  distinct  yet  adjacent 
villages,  and  both  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives.  In  Matthew  (xxi.  1) 
Bethphage  only  is  mentioned:  "And  when  they  drew  nigh  unto  Jeru- 
salem, and  were  come  unto  Bethphage,  unto  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
then  sent,  ff."  In  John  (xii.  1)  mention  is  made  of  Bethany,  but 
not  of  Bethphage.  As  the  journey  from  Jericho  to  Jerusalem  was 
from  northeast  to  southwest,  it  is  supposed  that  Bethphage  was  first 
reached,  and  therefore  was  east  or  northeast  of  Bethany,  and  more 
remote  from  the  city.  (So  Winer,  Rob.,  Meyer,  Tristram.)  Others, 
however,  maintain  that  the  Evangelists  in  their  narratives  take 
Jerusalem  as  the  centre,  and  mention  Bethphage  first  because  first 
reached  by  one  going  eastward  to  Jericho,  and  so  nearer  the  city 
than  Bethany.  (So  Licht.,  Ellicott,  Farrar,  Lauge.)  Another  reason 
for  this  order  is  given  by  Greswell  (iii.  75):  "Bethphage  lay  upon 
the  direct  line  of  this  route,  but  Bethany  did  not,  so  that  one  travel- 
ling from  Jericho  would  come  to  Bethphage  first,  and  would  have  to 
turn  off  from  the  road  to  go  to  Bethany." 

But  before  we  can  define  the  relative  positions  of  the  two  places, 
we  must  examine  their  supposed  sites;  several  have  been  suggested. 

Barclay  (65)  finds  a  site  which  he  thinks  answers  all  demands  of 
the  narrative,  a  little  south  of  the  road  from  Jericho  to  Jerusalem. 
It  is  upon  "  a  spur  of  Olivet  distant  rather  more  than  a  mile  from  the 
city,  situated  between  two  deep  valleys,  on  which  are  tanks,  founda- 
tions, and  other  indubitable  evidences  of  the  former  existence  of  a 
village."  Porter  (Hand-Book)  refers  to  a  site  upon  the  projecting 
point  of  a  ridge,    "and  marked  by  scarped  rocks,  cisterns,  and  old 


Part  VII.]  BETHPHAGE   AND   BETHANY.  431 

stones."  In  the  twelfth  century  Bethphage  was  placed  by  tradition 
l)etween  Bethany  and  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  no  other  traditional 
site  was  known.  Modern  explorations  give  us  little  knowledge.  In 
1879  the  ruins  of  a  mediaeval  church  were  discovered  on  the  ridge 
joining  the  Mount  of  Olives  to  the  hill  above  Bethany,  in  which  was 
found  a  slab  of  stone  having  on  it  paintings  and  inscriptions  (See 
Pict.  Pal.,  83;  Twenty-one  Years'  Work,  177.)  This  is  ascribed  to  the 
twelfth  century,  but  gives  no  help  as  to  the  true  site  of  Bethphage; 
it  shows  only  the  tradition  of  that  time. 

2.  That  Bethphage  was  counted  as  an  ecclesiastical  suburb  of 
Jerusalem,  and  was  on  the  western  slope  of  the  Mount.  This  is 
often  said  by  the  Talmudists,  some  of  whom  speak  as  if  it  were 
locally  within  the  city  walls;  but  their  meaning  seems  to  be,  that 
lying  outside  the  walls  but  contiguous  to  them,  it  was  reckoned 
as  holy  as  the  city  itself.  The  reason  of  this  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  at  the  great  feasts  too  many  were  present  to  be  able  to 
find  lodging  in  the  city,  and  hence  it  was  necessary  to  enlarge  it 
by  sanctifying  some  space  without  the  walls.  The  western  slope 
of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  perhaps  also  its  summit,  were  so  sanc- 
tified and  regarded  as  holy.  Lightfoot  (Vol.  X.,  Chronograph. 
Cent.,  76)  quotes  several  writers  to  show  that  a  sentence  of  the  San- 
hedrin  pronounced  at  Bethphage  was  valid ;  that  the  Passover  might 
be  eaten  there,  and  the  shewbread  be  baked  there.  He  thinks 
that  Bethjjhage  was  ' '  a  tract  without  the  walls,  but  regarded 
us  holy  as  if  in  the  city  itself";  and  that  the  outermost  street 
of  the  city  but  within  the  walls,  was  called  by  the  same  name. 
Edersheim  (ii.  364)  observes  that  Bethphage  is  sometimes  spoken  of 
as  distinct  from  Jerusalem,  while  at  others  it  is  described  as,  for 
ecclesiastical  purposes,  part  of  the  city  itself.  Neubauer  (147)  to 
reconcile  the  Talmudists,  supposes  it  to  have  been  near  to  Jerusalem, 
but  not  in  it.  Thus,  when  many  were  present  at  the  feasts,  and  the 
city  was  not  able  to  hold  them,  Bethphage  was  included  in  the  holy 
limits,  and  the  oflferings  of  those  in  it  were  accepted  (Hamburger, 
ii.  109;  Sepp,  v.  421). 

But  how  far  from  city  walls  easPward  did  this  suburb  extend? 
Lightfoot  says,  2,000  cubits,  or  a  Sabbath  day's  journey ;  and  that  cer- 
tain marks  were  set  that  its  bounds  might  be  known.  The  point  on  the 
Mount  of  Olives  where  Bethany  and  Bethphage  touched  on  each  other, 
was  at  this  distance;  and  the  place  where  the  ass  was  tied  may  have 
been  where  one  of  these  marks  was  set  up  (Luke  xix.  29-30).  To 
the  same  effect  Conder  says  (H.  B.,  326):  "It  appears  clear  from 
a  number  of  passages  in  the  Talmud  that  Bethphage  marked  the 
Sabbatical   line  east  of  Jerusalem.     The  limit  called   '  the  wall  of 


432  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

Bethphage '  is  about  two  thousand  feet  east  of  the  east  wall  of 
Jerusalem"  (Caspari,  190).  Assuming  these  statements  to  be  well 
founded,  Bethphage  was  the  name  given  to  a  district  extending  a 
Sabbath  day's  journey  east  of  the  city  up  the  slopes  of  Olivet,  and 
regarded  as  holy. 

We  must  now  further  ask,  Was  there  also  a  village  called  Beth- 
phage? This  is  denied  by  Lightfoot:  "There  was  no  town  at  all 
named  Bethphage."  (III.  Har.,  131;  so  Godet,  Caspari.)  Others 
hold  that  there  was  a  village,  but  that  it  later  fell  into  decay,  and  its 
site  is  unknown.  But  most  commentators  take  Bethpage  to  be  the 
village  mentioned  by  the  Lord  (Matt.  xxi.  2) :  "  Go  into  the  village  over 
against  you,  and  ye  shall  find  an  ass  tied."  (Meyer,  EUicott,  Keil; 
Weiss  thinks  that  the  village  was  Bethany;  Ebrard,  neither  Bethany 
nor  Bethphage,  but  a  third  and  unknown  village.  Schick,  Qt.  St., 
Oct.,  1889,  thinks  this  village  to  be  that  where  the  Bethphage  stone 
was  found.     See  Jerusalem  Survey,  p.  331  ff.) 

On  the  other  hand,  Caspari,  who  makes  Bethphage  a  district  em- 
bracing the  whole  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  denies  any  village 
of  the  name,  thinks  Bethany  to  be  the  particular  spot  within 
Bethphage  to  which  Jesus  came.  It  is  said  by  Godet :  ' '  He  came  to 
Bethphage,  the  sacred  district ;  and  to  Bethany,  the  hamlet  where  this 
district  began."  But  we  may  rather  say,  with  Lightfoot,  that  they 
were  two  distinct  districts  or  townships;  and  that  when  it  is  said 
(Acts  i.  12)  that  "the  Lord  led  His  disciples  out  to  Bethany,  a  Sab- 
bath day's  journey,"  this  "brought  them  to  the  tract  of  Olivet  where 
the  name  of  Bethphage  ceased  and  that  of  Bethany  began ;  and  here 
He  ascended."  The  language  of  Luke:  "When  He  was  come  nigh 
to  Bethphage  and  Bethany,"  implies  that  He  was  on  the  border  line 
of  the  two.  (Thus  in  substance  Williams,  Holy  City,  ii.  443.)  This 
does  not  forbid  the  existence  of  two  villages  or  hamlets,  one,  Beth- 
phage, giving  its  name  to  the  western,  the  other,  Bethany,  to  the 
eastern  slope  of  the  mount.     (See  McClellan,  589;  Winer,  i.  174.) 

We  may,  then,  believe  that  the  Lord  had  reached  the  point  wiion' 
the  two  districts,  Bethany  and  Bethphage,  joined,  when  He  sent  the 
two  disciples  for  the  colt.  Whether  the  village  to  which  He  sent 
them  was  called  Bethphage,  and,  if  so,  where  this  village  stood,  are 
questions  which  our  present  knowledge  does  not  enable  us  to  answer. 

Without,  then,  attempting  to  define  the  exact  position  of  Beth- 
phage, we  may  thus  arrange  the  circumstances  connected  with  the 
Lord's  departure  from  Bethany:  Leaving  this  village  on  foot,  attended 
by  His  disciples  and  others,  He  comes  to  tlie  place  where  a  neighbor- 
ing village,  i)rol>ably  Bethphage,  is  in  view  over  against  them,  per- 
haps separated  from  them  by  a  valley.     At  this  point  He  arrests  His 


Part  VII.]      TRIUMPHAL   ENTRY   INTO   JERUSALEM.  433 

marcli,  and  sends  two  of  His  disciples  to  find  and  bring  to  Him  an 
ass  tied  and  her  colt  with  her.  When  her  owners  demanded  of  them 
why  they  took  the  ass,  they  had  only  to  say  that  the  Lord  had  need 
of  it,  and  the  sight  of  Jesus  with  the  attendant  crowds  would  at  once 
explain  why  He  needed  it.  It  is  not,  therefore,  necessary  to  suppose 
that  the  owners  were  His  disciples,  much  less  that  any  previous 
arrangement  had  been  made  with  them.  The  animals  being 
brought  to  Him,  He  is  seated  upon  the  colt,  and  amidst  the  acclama- 
tions of  the  multitude,  ascends  to  the  top  of  the  Mount. 

As  both  the  ass  and  her  colt  were  brought,  it  has  been  questioned 
upon  which  the  Lord  rode.  But  Mark  and  Luke  are  express  that  it 
was  the  colt.'  The  multitude  that  accompanied  the  Lord  was  com- 
posed, in  part,  of  those  going  up  to  the  city  from  the  neighborhood, 
and  of  the  pilgrims  from  Galilee  and  Percea  on  their  way  thither;  and 
in  part,  of  those  who,  hearing  of  His  coming,  had  gone  out  from  the 
city  to  meet  Him  (John  xii.  12,  13).  It  is  probable  that  most  of  the 
latter  were  pilgrims,  not  inhabitants  of  the  city,  and  are  spoken  of 
by  John  as  "people  that  were  come  to  the  feast."  The  priests  and 
scribes  and  Pharisees  stood  as  angry  or  contemptuous  spectators,  and 
not  only  refused  to  join  in  the  rejoicings  and  hosanuas,  but  bade  Him 
rebuke  His  disciples,  and  command  therh  to  be  silent  (Luke  xix.  39). 

The  road  by  which  the  Lord  passed  over  Olivet  was  probably  the 
southern  or  main  road  which  passes  between  the  summit  which  con- 
tains the  Tombs  of  the  Prophets,  and  that  called  the  Mount  of 
Offence.  This  was  the  usual  road  for  horsemen  and  caravans;  a  steep 
footpath  leads  over  the  central  peak,  and  a  winding  road  over  the 
northern  shoulder,  neither  of  which  could  He  have  taken.  Stanley 
(187)  thus  describes  the  procession:  "Two  vast  streams  of  j^eople 
met  on  that  day.  The  one  poured  out  from  the  city,  and,  as  they 
came  through  the  gardens  whose  clusters  of  palm  rose  on  the  south- 
eastern corner  of  Olivet,  they  cut  down  the  long  branches,  as  was 
their  wont  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  and  moved  upward  toward 
Bethany  with  loud  shouts  of  welcome.  From  Bethany  streamed  forth 
the  crowds  who  had  assembled  there  the  previous  night.  The  road  soon 
loses  sight  of  Bethany.  .  .  .  -The  two  streams  met  midway. 
Half  of  the  vast  mass  turning  round,  preceded,  the  other  half  followed. 
Gradually  the  long  procession  swept  up  over  the  ridge  where  first 
begins  '  the  descent  of  the  Mount  of  Olives '  toward  Jerusalem.  At 
this  point  the  first  view  is  caught  of  the  southeastern  corner  of  the 
city.  The  temple  and  the  more  northern  j^ortions  are  hid  by  the 
slope  of  Olivet  on  the  right;  what  is  seen  is  only  Mount  Zion.     .     . 


1  Ebrard,  480;  Meyer,  in  loco. 


434  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIL 

It  was  at  this  precise  point,  '  as  He  drew  near  at  the  descent  of  the 
Mount  of  Olives,'  (may  it  not  have  been  from  the  sight  thus  opening 
upon  them?)  that  the  shout  of  triumph  burst  forth  from  the  multi- 
tude :  '  Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David !  Blessed  is  He  that  cometh  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord!'  Again  the  procession  advanced.  The  road 
descends  a  slight  declivity  and  the  glimpse  of  the  city  is  again  with- 
drawn behind  the  intervening  ridge  of  Olivet.  A  few  moments,  and 
the  path  mounts  again ;  it  climbs  a  rugged  ascent ;  it  reaches  a  ledge 
of  smooth  rock,  and  in  an  instant  the  whole  city  bursts  into  view.  It 
is  hardly  possible  to  doubt  that  this  rise  and  turn  of  tlie  road,  this 
rocky  ledge,  was  the  exact  point  where  the  multitude  paused  again; 
and  'He,  when  He  beheld  the  city,'  wept  over  it."' 

Tradition  makes  the  Lord  to  have  crossed  the  summit  of  the 
Mount  of  Olives,  and  puts  the  spot  where  He  wept  over  the  city  about 
half-way  down  on  its  western  slope. ^ 

Placing  the  Lord's  arrival  at  Bethany  on  Friday,  the  supper  and 
anointing  on  Saturday,  His  solemn  entry  into  the  city  took  place  on 
Sunday.'  As  to  the  hour  of  the  entry  nothing  is  said,  but  from  Mark 
xi.  11  it  appears  that  it  was  late  in  the  afternoon  when  He  entered  the 
temple;  and,  as  no  events  intermediate  are  mentioned,  the  entry  into 
the  temple  seems  to  have  been  soon  after  the  entry  into  the  city.  It 
was,  then,  probably  near  the  middle  of  the  day  when  He  left  Beth- 
any. Luthardt,  who  puts  the  supper  on  Sunday,  makes  the  entry  to 
have  been  still  later  upon  the  same  day ;  but  this  would  have  brought 
it  to  the  verge  of  evening.  Greswell  puts  His  departure  from  Beth- 
any about  the  ninth  hour,  or  3  p.  m.  ;  His  arrival  in  the  temple  before 
the  eleventh;  His  departure  before  sunset. 

This  entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem,  "  the  city  of  the  great  king," 
was  a  formal  assertion  of  His  Messianic  claims.  It  was  the  last 
apjieal  to  the  Jews  to  discern  and  recognize  His  royal  character.  He 
came  as  a  king,  and  permitted  His  disciples  and  the  multitudes  to 
pay  Him  kingly  honors.  He  received,  as  rightly  belonging  to  Him, 
the  acclamations,  "Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David  !  Blessed  is  He 
that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord;"  "Blessed  be  the  kingdom 
of  our  father  David,  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord;" 
"Blessed  be  the  King  that  cometh  in  the  name  9f  the  Lord:  peace  in 
heaven,  and  glory  in  the  highest;"  "Hosanna!  Blessed  is  the  King 
of  Israel,  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  He  was  the  Son  of 
David,  the  King  of  Israel,   coming  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.     But, 

>  This  point  is  about  100  feet  higher  than  the  valley  of  the  Kidron  near  St.  Ste 
phen's  gate. 

a  See  Van  der  Velde's  Map  of  Jerusalem  ;  Ellicott,  288,  note  1. 

*  So  Lichtenstein,  Robinson,  A\'ieselcr,  (Jaidlncr,  Fried.ieb,  Wichelhans,  Meyer, 


Part  VII.]  JESUS  RETURNS   TO   BETHANY.  435 

although  this  triumphal  entry  excited  general  attention — "all  the 
city  was  moved  "  (Matthew  xxi.  10), — yet  it  is  plain  from  the  question 
put  by  the  citizens,  "  Who  is  this?"  that,  as  a  body,  they  had  taken 
little  part  in  the  matter.  "And  the  multitude  said.  This  is  Jesus, 
the  prophet  of  Nazareth  of  Galilee"  (verse  11).  This  multitude,  tiius 
distinguished  from  the  citizens,  consisted  doubtless  of  those  who  had 
escorted  Him  from  Bethany,  and  who  were  mostly  Galilaeans ;  and  their 
answer,  as  remarked  by  Meyer,  seems  to  show  a  kind  of  local  pride 
in  Him  as  from  Galilee,  their  own  prophet.  But  this  very  answer 
was  peculiarly  adapted  to  set  the  peo2)le  of  Judaea  against  Him.  (See 
John  vii.  52.) 

The  visit  to  the  temple,  for  this  was  the  goal  to  which  the 
procession  directed  its  march,*  and  its  purification,  are  put  by 
Matthew  (xxi.  12)  as  if  immediately  following  the  entry;  but  Mark 
states  that  He  merely  entered  the  temple,  and,  looking  around  Him, 
went  out  because  the  even  had  come,  and  returned  to  Bethany  with 
the  Twelve.  Luke  (xix.  45)  gives  us  no  mark  of  time.  The  state- 
ment of  Mark  is  so  precise,  that  we  cannot  hesitate  to  give  it  the  pref- 
erence.^ Some  suppose  the  Lord  to  have  twice  purified  the  temple; 
on  the  day  of  His  entry,  and  again  the  next  day.^  Others,  that  He 
began  it  on  one  day  and  finished  it  on  the  next,  cleansing  first  the 
inner  and  then  the  outer  court.  Patritius  makes  Him  to  have  healed 
the  blind  and  lame,  to  have  answered  the  priests  and  scribes  (Matt, 
xxi.  14-16),  and  to  have  heard  the  request  of  the  Greeks  (John  xii.  20- 
22),  on  this  first  entry.  Alford's  supposition,*  that  Mark  relates  the 
triumphal  entry  a  day  too  soon,  that  Jesus,  in  fact,  first  entered  the 
city  privately,  noticed  the  abuses  in  the  temple,  and  returning  to 
Bethany,  the  next  day  made  His  triumphal  entry,  has  no  good  basis. 
A  private  entry  before  the  public  one  conflicts  with  the  whole  tenor 
of  the  narrative. 

After  looking  about  the  temple  ("round  about  upon  all  things," 
Mark),  as  if  He  would  observe  whether  all  was  done  according  to  His 
Father's  will,  He  goes  out,  and  returns  to  Bethany.  Greswell  (iii. 
100)  remarks:  "It  is  probable  that  the  traders,  with  their  droves  of 
cattle  and  their  other  effects,  had  already  removed  them  for  the  day." 
But  if  so,  He  saw  by  plain  marks  that  His  Father's  house  was  still 
made  a  house  of  merchandise.     There  can  be  little  doubt  that  He 


1  See  Mark  xi.  11;  R.  V. :  "  He  entered  into  Jerusalem,  into  the  temple." 

2  Wieseler,  Lange,  Alexander,  Robinnon,  Tischendorf,  Gardiner,  Meyer,  EUicott, 
McClel.,  Eders.    For  the  order  of  Matthew,  Farrar,  Weitbrecht. 

3  Lightfoot,  Townsend;  Greswell,  iu.  99.    Pound,  once  on  Friday  and  again  on 
Sunday;  so  apparently  Neander. 

*  Note  on  Matt.  xxi.  1. 


436  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

spent  the  nights  during  Passion  week  in  Bethany,  and  probably  in 
the  house  of  Lazarus.  Matthew  says  (xxi.  17) :  "  He  went  out  of  the 
city  into  Bethany,  and  He  lodged  there."  Luke,  speaking  in  general 
terms,  says  (xxi.  37) :  ' '  And  in  the  day-time  He  was  teaching  in  the 
temple,  and  at  night  He  went  out  and  abode  (lodged)  in  the  mount 
that  is  called  the  Mount  of  Olives."  Probably  Bethany  is  here  meant 
as  a  district  embracing  a  part  of  the  mount,  for  He  could  not  well,  at 
this  season  of  the  year,  without  a  tent,  lodge  in  the  open  air. 
Alexander  supposes  that  Luke 'would  suggest  that  "  a  part  of  these 
nights  was  employed  in  prayer  amidst  the  solitudes  of  Olivet." 
Some  would  put  the  request  of  the  Greeks  to  see  Jesus,  and  His 
answer  to  them  (John  xii.  20-36)  upon  this  day ;  but  it  may  better 
be  referred  to  Tuesday,  upon  grounds  to  be  there  given. 

Many  would  bring  this  visit  of  Jesus  to  the  temple  on  the  10th 
Nisan  into  connection  with  the  divine  command  to  choose  this  day  a 
lamb  for  the  paschal  sacrifice  and  supper  (Ex.  xii.  3-6),  and  thus  find 
in  it  a  mystical  significance.  He  was  the  true  Paschal  Lamb,  and 
was  now  set  apart  for  the  sacrifice.' 

Monday,  3d  Apeil,  11th  Nisan,  783.      A.  D.  30. 

Jesus,  leaving  Bethany  early  with  His  disciples,  is    Matt.  xxi.  18,  19. 
hungry,  and  beholding  a  fig  tree  by  the  way  which  has    Mark  xi.  12-14. 
no  fruit,  He  pronounces  a  curse  against  it.     Proceed- 
ing to  the  city,  He  enters  the  temple  and  purifies  it.     Matt.  xxi.  12-17. 
He  heals  there  the  blind  and  lame,  and  the  children    Mark  xi.  15-19. 
cry,  "  Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David."     His  reproofs    Luke  xix.  45-48. 
enrage  the  priests  and  scribes,  who  seek  how  to  de- 
stroy Him.     In  the  evening  He  departs,  and  retui-nsto 
Bethany. 

Both  Matthew  and  Mark  relate  that  the  Lord  was  hungry  as  He 
returned  into  the  city;  but  upon  what  ground  He  had  abstained  from 
food  that  morning  does  not  appear.  It  could  not  well  have  been 
from  the  early  hour  of  His  departure  from  Bethany,  but  was  probably 
a  self-imposed  fast.  It  has  been  inferred  from  this  circumstance  that 
He  could  not  have  spent  the  night  with  His  friends.  It  may  have 
been  spent  in  solitude  and  prayer. 

Into  an  examination  of  the  supposed  moral  difficulties  connected 
with  the  cursing  of  the  fig  tree,  we  cannot  here  enter.''  It  is  plain 
that  this  miracle  was  wrought  because  of  its  symbolic  teachings.  The 
fig  tree  was  the  type  of  the  Jewish  people  (Luke  xiii.  6-9).     They 


1  Whitby,  Greswell,  Alford,  Wieseler. 

2  See  Trench,  Miracles,  p.  346. 


Jr'art  VII.]      SECOND   PURIFICATION   OF   THE   TEMPLE.        437 

had  the  law,  the  temple,  all  rites  of  worship,  the  externals  of 
righteousness;  but  bore  none  of  its  true  fruits.  Christ  found  nothing 
but  leaves.  Some  think  the  tree  to  have  been  unhealthy,  and  there- 
fore a  better  symbol  of  the  nation.  It  is  said  by  Neander:  "A  sound 
tree,  suddenly  destroyed,  would  certainly  be  no  fitting  type  of  the 
Jewish  people." 

Matthew  relates  the  withering  of  the  fig  tree  as  if  it  took  place, 
not  only  on  the  same  day  on  Avhich  it  was  cursed,  but  within  a  few 
moments  (verses  19,  20).  Mark,  on  iiie  other  hand,  speaks  as  if  the 
withering  was  not  seen  by  the  disciples  till  the  next  day  (xi.  20). 
Greswell,  who  supposes  that  the  malediction  instantly  took  effect,  and 
that  the  tree  began  at  once  to  wither,  would  make  Matthew  and 
Mark  refer  to  two  distinct  conversations  between  the  Lord  and  the 
disciples,  —  one  that  day,  and  the  other  upon  the  next.  More  probably, 
Matthew  brings  together  all  that  occurred  upon  both  days,  in  order 
to  complete  his  narrative.' 

That  this  purification  of  the  temple  is  distinct  from  that  at  the 
beginning  of  His  ministry  (John  ii.  13-17)  has  been  already  shown. 
That  the  latter  was  passed  over  by  the  Synoptists,  is  explained  from 
the  fact  that  they  begin  tlieir  account  of  Jesus'  ministry  with  His 
departure  to  Galilee  after  John  the  Baptist's  imprisonment.  That 
John  should  omit  the  last,  is  wholly  in  keeping  with  the  character 
of  his  Gospel.^  The  first  cleansing  and  rebuke  had  wrought  no 
permanent  results,  and  the  old  abuses  were  restored  in  full  vigor. 

After  cleansing  the  temple,  or  that  part  of  the  court  of  the 
Gentiles  called  "the  shops,"  where  every  day  was  sold  wine, 
salt,  oil,  as  also  oxen  and  sheep,  ^  He  permits  the  blind  and  lame, 
probably  those  who  asked  alms  at  the  gates,  to  come  to  Him,  and 
He  healed  them.  These  are  the  only  cases  of  healing  recorded  as 
wrought  by  the  Lord  in  the  temple.  These  healings,  and  the  expres- 
sions of  wonder  and  gratitude  which  they  called  forth,  joined  to  the 
remembrance  of  the  acclamations  that  had  greeted  Him  the  day 
before,  led  the  children  in  the  temjjle,  who  may  have  been  members 
of  the  choir  of  singers  employed  in  the  temple  service,*  to  cry, 
"  Hosanua  to  the  Son  of  David,"  greatly  to  the  displeasure  of  the 
priests  and  scribes.  It  is  remarkable  that  children  only  are  men- 
tioned, and  may  indicate  that  already  the  multitude,  overawed  by  the 
firm  and  hostile  bearing  of  His  enemies,  had  begun  to  waver,  and 
dared  no  more  openly  express  their  good-will.  (See,  however, 
Mark  xi.  18.) 

1  So  Alford,  Trench,  Krafft,  Wieseler. 

2  See  Edershcim,  ii.  389,  note. 

^  See  Lightfoot,  on  Matt.  xsi.  12. 

*  Lightfoot,  The  Temple  Service,  p.  5(3:  Sopp,  v.  439. 


438 


THE  LIFE   OP  OUR  LORD. 


[Part  VII. 


Some,  from  the  fact  that  the  children  are  here  mentioned  as  cry- 
ing Hosanna,  and  that  in  the  temple,  make  it  to  have  been  on  the  day  of 
the  Lord's  entry.'  But  there  is  no  difficulty  in  believing  that  the 
children  might  now  re-echo  what  they  had  heard  the  day  before." 

Tuesday,  4th  April,  12th  Nisan,  783.     A.  D.  30. 


Returning  into  the  city  in  the  morning  with  His  dis- 
ciples, they  see  the  6g  tree  dried  up  from  the  roots,  and 
this  leads  Jesus  to  speak  to  them  respecting  faith.  As 
He  enters  the  temple,  the  Pharisees  ask  Him  by  what 
authority  He  acts.  He  replies  by  a  question  respecting 
the  baptism  of  John,  and  adds  the  parables  of  the  two 
sons  and  of  the  wicked  husbandmen.  The  Pharisees 
wish  to  arrest  Him,  but  are  afraid  of  the  people.  He 
speaks  the  parable  of  the  king's  son.  The  Pharisees 
and  Herodians  propose  to  Him  the  question  concern- 
ing the  lawfulness  of  tribute  to  Caesar.  The  Sadducees 
question  Him  respecting  the  resurrection  of  the  dead ; 
and  a  lawyer,  Which  is  the  chief  commandment  in  the 
law?  He  asks  the  Pharisees  a  question  respecting  the 
Messiah,  and  puts  them  to  silence,  and  addressing  the 
disciples  and  people  denounces  their  hypocrisy. 

After  this  He  watches  the  people  casting  in  their 
gifts,  and  praises  the  poor  widow  who  casts  in  two 
mites.  Some  Greeks  desiring  to  see  Him,  He  prophe- 
sies of  His  death.  A  voice  is  heard  from  heaven.  He 
speaks  a  few  words  to  the  people  and  leaves  the  tem- 
ple. As  He  goes  out,  the  disciples  point  out  to  Him  the 
size  and  splendor  of  the  buildings,  to  whom  He  replies 
that  all  shall  be  thrown  down.  Ascending  the  Mount 
of  Olives  He  seats  Himself,  and  explains  to  Peter,  James, 
John,  and  Andrew,  the  course  of  events  till  His  return. 
He  adds,  that  after  two  days  was  the  Passover,  when  He 
should  be  betrayed.  He  goes  to  Bethany,  and  the  same 
evening  His  enemies  hold  a  council  and  agree  with 
Judas  respecting  His  betrayal. 


Mark  xi.  20-36. 
Matt.  xxi.  20-22. 

Matt.  xxi.  23-46. 
Mark  xi.  27-33. 
Luke  xx.  1-19. 
Mark  xii.  1-12. 
Matt.  xxii.  1-14. 
Matt.  xxii.  15-46. 
Mark  xii.  13-40. 
Luke  xx.  20-47. 


Matt,  xxiii. 


Mark  xii.  41-44. 
Luke  xxi.  1^. 
John  xii.  20-50. 


Mark  xiii. 
Luke  xxi.  5-36. 
Matt,  xxiv.,  xxv. 

Matt.  xxvi.  1-5. 
Mark  xiv.  1,  2. 
Matt.  xxvi.  14^16. 
Mark  xiv.  10,  11. 
Luke  xxii.  1-6. 


The  withering  of  the  fig  tree  seems  to  have  begun  as  soon  as 
the  Lord  had  spoken  the  curse  against  it.  Matthew  says, 
"presently  the  fig  tree  withered  away."  Mark  says,  "it  was 
dried  up  from  the  roots."  In  twenty-four  hours  it  was  com- 
pletely dead.  That  the  disciples  did  not,  at  evening  upon  their 
return  to  Bethany,  see  that  it  had  withered,  may  be  owing  to 
the  late  hour  of  their  return,  or  that  they  did  not  pass  by  it. 


1  Alford,  Newcome,  Robinson. 

2  Krailt,  Wieeeler,  Lichtenstein,  Ellicott 


Part  VII.]       LAST  TEACHING  IN  THE   TEMPLE.  439 

The  people  assembling  at  an  early  hour  in  the  temple,  Jesus 
went  thither  immediately  upon  His  arrival  in  the  city,  and  began 
to  teach.  Very  soon  the  chief  priests  and  elders  of  the  people, 
and  the  scribes,  came  to  Him,  demanding  by  what  authority  He 
acted.  It  seems  a  question  formally  put  to  Him,  and  probably 
by  a  deputation  from  the  Sanhedrin.'  It  differs  essentially  from 
the  question  put  to  Him  after  the  first  purification  (John  ii.  18): 
"  What  sign  shewest  thou  unto  us,  seeing  thou  doest  these 
things  ? "  Now  it  is  :  "  By  what  authority  doest  thou  these 
things  ?  And  who  gave  thee  this  authority  ?  "  Then,  they  de- 
sired that  He  should  work  miracles  as  signs  or  proofs  of  His 
divine  mission.  But  His  miracles  had  not  been  sufficient  to 
convince  them.  Now,  he  must  give  other  vouchers.  He  must 
show  himself  to  be  authorized  by  those  who,  sitting  in  Moses' 
seat,  could  alone  confer  authority.  But  they  had  not  author- 
ized Him,  and  He  was  therefore  acting  in  an  arbitrary  and  ille- 
gal manner.  To  this  question  He  replies  by  another  respecting 
the  baptism  of  John.  The  Baptist  had  borne  his  testimony  to 
Him  when,  three  years  before,  they  had  sent  a  deputation 
to  him  (John  i.  26).  If  John  was  a  prophet,  and  divinely  com- 
missioned, why  had  they  not  received  his  testimony?  This  was 
a  dilemma  they  could  not  escape.  They  could  not  condemn 
themselves;  they  dared  not  offend  the  people;  they  must  remain 
silent. 

Although  thus  repulsed,  His  enemies  did  not  leave  the  tem- 
ple, and  He  began  to  speak  to  them  in  parables  (Mark  xii.  1); 
"  the  second  beginning,"  says  Stier,  "  as  before  in  Galilee,  so 
now  in  Jerusalem."  It  is  to  be  noted  that  now,  for  the  first 
time,  the  Lord  uttered  plainly  the  truth  in  the  hearing  of  the 
Pharisees,  that  they  would  kill  Him,  and  that  in  consequence  the 
kingdom  would  be  taken  from  them.^  The  point  of  these 
parables  was  not  missed  by  the  Pharisees,  but  they  dared  not 
arrest  Him. 

The  parable  of  the  marriage  of  the  king's  son  is  related  by 
Matthew  only,  for  that  in  Luke  (xiv.  16-24)  was  spoken  much 


•  So  Alexander,  Meyer,  Keil;  Edershcim  (ii.  381)  thinks  there  could  not  have  been 
any  formal  meetinc;  of  the  Sanhedrin,  but  only  an  informal  gathering  of  the  authorities. 
2  See  Matt.  viii.  11, 13.    These  words  seem  to  have  been  spoken  to  the  disciples. 


440  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

earlier.'  It  set  forth  more  distinctly  than  the  parables  pre- 
ceding, the  rejection  of  the  Jews, — those  bidden  of  old;  the 
bidding  of  others  in  their  place;  and  the  destruction  of  their  city. 

Stung  by  these  parables,  so  full  of  sharp  rebuke,  the  Phari- 
sees now  consulted  together  how  "  they  might  entangle  Him  in  His 
talk,"  and  they  sent  out  to  Him  certain  of  their  number,  and  of 
the  Herodians.  There  is  by  no  means  agreement  as  to  the  position 
of  these  Herodians,  or  why  they  are  now  acting  with  the  Pharisees. 
They  are  generally  regarded  as  partizans  of  the  Herods  (Josephus, 
Antiq.,  xv.  15.  9).  Edersheim  (ii.  384)  thinks  them  a  party  which 
"honestly  accepted  the  house  of  Herod  as  occupants  of  the  Jew- 
ish throne";  Greswell  (iii.  Ill),  as  '< holding  covertly  the  princi- 
ples of  Judas  of  Galilee,"  or,  in  other  words,  as  secret  nationalists. 
Lutteroth,  in  loco,  thinks  them  so  called  simply  because  subjects 
of  one  of  the  Herods,  and  thus  to  distinguish  them  from  the 
Jews  under  Roman  rule.  Never  were  Pharisaic  craft  and  in- 
veterate hostility  more  strikingly  shown  than  in  these  attempts 
to  draw  something  from  His  own  mouth  which  might  serve  as 
the  basis  of  accusation  against  Him.  The  first  question  would 
have  been  full  of  peril  to  one  less  wise  than  Himself,  for 
it  appealed  to  the  most  lively  political  susceptibilities  of  the  peo- 
ple. No  zealous  Jew  could  admit  that  tribute  was  rightly  due 
to  Caesar,  and  much  less  could  one  who  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah 
admit  this;  for  it  was  to  confess  that  He  was  the  vassal  of  the 
Romans,  a  confession  utterly  incompatible  with  Messianic  claims. 
Yet  if  He  denied  this,  the  Herodians  were  at  hand  to  accuse 
him  of  treason,  an  accusation  which  the  Romans  were  always 
quick  to  hear.  But  He  avoided  the  artfully  contrived  snare 
by  referring  the  question  to  their  own  discernment.  God  had 
chosen  them  for  His  people,  and  He  alone  should  be  their  king, 
and  therefore  it  was  not  right  for  them  to  be  under  heathen 
domination.  Yet,  because  of  their  sins,  God  had  given  them 
into  the  hands  of  their  enemies,  and  they  were  now  under 
Roman  rule.  This  fact  they  must  recognize,  and  in  view  of  this 
they  must  fulfil  all  duties,  those  to  Ci3esar  as  well  as  those  to 
God. 

The  question  of  the  Sadducees  was  in   keeping   with   the 


1  Meyer,  Alford,  Robiuson,  Tischeiidoif,  Lichtensteiu,  Trench. 


Part  VII.]     PHARISEES  AND   SADDUCEES   TEMPT   HIM.      441 

skeptical,  scoffing  character  of  that  sect.  Apparently,  it  was  not 
so  much  designed  to  awake  popular  hatred  against  Him  as  to 
cast  ridicule  upon  Him,  and  also  upon  their  rivals,  the  Pharisees, 
by  showing  the  absurd  consequences  of  one  of  the  most 
chei'ished  pharisaic  dogmas,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  Per- 
haps, also,  they  were  curious  to  see  how  He  would  meet  an 
argument  to  which  their  rivals  had  been  able  to  give  no 
satisfactory  answer.' 

The  question  of  the  lawyer  seems  to  have  been  without  any 
malicious  motive  on  his  part.'^  It  referred  to  a  disputed  point 
among  the  schools  of  the  Rabbis,  one  which  he,  admmng  the 
wisdom  of  Jesus,  wished  to  hear  solved.  Some,  however,  sup- 
pose (see  Matt.  xxii.  34)  that  the  lawyer  was  sent  by  the  Phari- 
sees who  had  gathered  together  to  devise  a  new  attack.^  But 
these  two  views  are  not  really  inconsistent.  The  lawyer,  a  man 
of  ability  and  reputation,  and  on  these  grounds  chosen  to  be 
their  representative  and  spokesman,  may  have  had  a  sincere  re- 
spect for  the  wisdom  that  had  marked  Christ's  previous  answers; 
and  proposed  this  question  respecting  the  comparative  value  of 
the  commandments  rather  to  test  His  knowledge  in  the  law  than 
to  array  the  people  against  him.  Had  the  answer  been  errone- 
ous, doubtless  advantage  would  have  been  taken  of  it  to  His 
injury,  although  it  is  not  obvious  to  us  in  what  way;  but  it  so 
commended  itself  to  the  intelligence  of  the  lawyer,  that  he  hon- 
estly and  frankly  expressed  his  approbation.  (See  Mark  xii.  32- 
34.) 

All  his  adversaries  being  silenced,  the  Lord  proceeds  in  His 
turn  to  ask  a  question  that  should  test  their  own  knowledge, 
and  inquires  how  the  Messiah  could  be  the  Son  of  David,  and 
yet  David  call  Him  Lord  ?  Their  inability  to  answer  Him 
shows  us  how  little  the  truth  that  the  Messiah  should  be  a 
divine  being,  the  Son  of  God  as  well  as  Son  of  Man,  was  yet 
apprehended  by  thein;  and  how  all  Christ's  efforts  to  reveal  His 
true  nature  had  failed  through  their  wickedness  and  unbelief. 

It  is  questioned  whether  the  Lord's  words  spoken  of  the 
scribes  (Mark  xii.  38-40;  Luke  xx.  45-47)  are  to  be  distinguished 
from  those  recorded  by  Matthew  xxiii.     Greswell  (iii.  121)  gives 

1  See  Meyer,  in  loco.  2  Greswell,  Alford. 

3  Meyer,  Ebrard. 


44-3  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VH 

ten  reasons  for  distinguishing  between  them,  which,  however, 
have  no  great  weight.  Most  regard  them  as  identical.'  Wiese- 
ler  (395)  and  Godet  suppose  Matthew  to  have  included  the 
address  to  the  Pharisees  recorded  by  Luke  (xi.  39-52).  We 
can  scarce  doubt  that  the  Loi'd's  address  (Matt,  xxiii.)  was 
spoken  as  given  by  that  Evangelist.  Some  parts  of  it  are  found 
in  Luke,  but,  as  said  by  Meyer,  "  The  entire  discourse  has  so 
much  the  character  of  a  living  whole,  that  although  much  that 
was  spoken  on  other  occasions  may,  perhaps,  be  mixed  up  with 
it,  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  disjoin  such  passages  from  those  that 
are  essentially  original."  (Verse  14  is  put  in  R.  V.  in  the  mar- 
gin.) The  attempts  of  the  Pharisees  to  entrap  Him,  their  malice 
and  wickedness  veiled  under  the  show  of  righteousness,  awakened 
the  Lord's  deepest  indignation,  and  explain  the  terrible  sever- 
ity of  His  language.  They  had  proved  that  "  they  were  the 
children  of  them  which  killed  the  prophets,"  and  as  the  old  mes- 
sengers of  God  had  been  rejected  and  slain,  so  would  they  re- 
ject and  slay  those  whom  He  was  about  to  send.  Thus  should  all 
the  righteous  blood  shed  upon  the  earth  come  upon  them. 

It  is  not  certain  who  was  the  "  Zacharias,  son  of  Barachias," 
to  whom  the  Lord  refers  as  slain  between  the  temple  and  the 
altar.  Many  identify  him  with  the  Zechariah  son  of  Jehoiada, 
who  was  "  stoned  with  stones  at  the  commandment  of  the  king 
in  the  court  of  the  house  of  the  Lord"  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  20,  21). 
In  this  case  Barachias  may  have  been  another  name  of  Jehoiada, 
as  the  Jews  had  often  two  names;  or  Barachias  may  have  been 
the  father  and  Jehoiada  the  grandfather;  or,  as  it  is  omitted  by 
Luke  xi.  51,  some,  as  Meyer,  infer  that  it  was  not  mentioned  by 
Christ,  but  was  added  from  tradition,  and  erroneously  given, 
perhaps  confounding  him  with  the  Zechariah  son  of  Berechiah 
(Zech.  i.  1).  But  if  this  Zacharias  was  meant,  why  is  he  called 
the  last  of  the  martyrs,  since  there  were  others  later?  The  ex- 
planation given  by  Lightfoot  is  at  least  probable,  that  it  was  the 
last  example  in  the  Old  Testament  as  the  canon  is  arranged  in 
the  Hebrew,  the  books  of  Chronicles  being  at  the  end ;  and  there- 
fore the  Lord  cites  the  first,  that  of  Abel,  and  this  as  the  last. 
Both  have  also  another  circumstance  in  common  —  a  call  of  the 


>  Ebrard,  Meyer,  Alford,  Robinson,  Krafft. 


Part  VII.]      STERN  REBUKES   OP  THE   PHARISEES.  443 

murdered  for  vengeance.  Thus  Lightfoot  says:  "  The  requiring 
of  vengeance  is  mentioned  only  concerning  Abel  and  Zacharias. 
<  Behold,  the  voice  of  thy  brother's  blood  crieth  unto  me '  (Gen. 
iv.  10).  'Let  the  Lord  look  upon  it,  and  require  it'  "  (2  Chron. 
xxiv.  22).'  Lutteroth,  in  loco,  thinks  Zacharias  to  have  been  one 
of  "the  many  priests  "  mentioned  by  Josephus  (War,  i.  7.  5),  who 
were  slain  by  Pompey's  soldiers  while  carrying  on  services  at 
the  altar,  and  whose  name  was  known  to  the  Jews.  Others 
make  this  Zacharias  to  be  prophetically  spoken  of,  and  iden- 
tify him  with  the  Zacharias,  son  of  Baruch,  mentioned  by 
Josephus,^  who  was  slain  by  the  Zealots  in  the  midst  of  the 
temple,  and  the  body  cast  into  the  valley  of  the  Kidron.  But 
the  Lord  does  not  speak  of  blood  to  be  yet  shed,  but  of  that 
which  had  been  shed  ;  and  as  the  death  of  Abel  was  a  well- 
known  historical  event,  so  also  was  that  of  Zacharias.  Oth- 
ers refer  to  a  tradition  that  Zacharias,  father  of  John  the 
Baptist,  was  murdered  by  the  Jews.^ 

Many  make  this  discourse  to  the  Pharisees  to  have  been 
spoken  just  before  He  left  the  temple,  and  His  last  words 
there.  "  It  is  morally  certain,"  says  Greswell,  "that  our  Lord 
immediately  left  the  temple  and  never  returned  to  it  again." 
But  most  follow  the  order  of  Mark  (xii.  41-44),  who  places  the 
visit  of  Jesus  to  the  treasury  after  this  discourse.*  Seating  Him- 
self by  the  treasury  or  treasure  chests  in  the  court  of  the  women 
in  which  offerings  were  placed.  He  watches  those  who  come  to 
bring  their  gifts;  and  commendeth  the  gift  of  the  poor  widow. 

The  visit  of  the  Greeks  to  Him,  who  are  generally  regarded  as 
proselytes  of  the  gate,  who  had  come  to  Jerusalem  to  worship, 
is  mentioned  only  by  John  (xii.  20-36).  From  whence  they 
came,  we  do  not  know.  Some  suppose  them  to  have  lived  in 
one  of  the  cities  of  the  Decapolis,  and  find  here  the  reason  why 
they  should  have  presented  their  request  through  Philip  of  Beth- 
saida.  (Sepp,  v.  447,  thinks  them  deputies  of  Abgarus  king  of 
Edessa;  see  Westcott,  in  loco).     The  occasion  of  their  desire  to 

1  So  Meyer,  Alford,  Eders.,  Lange  ;  see  Winer,  ii.  711.  2  War,  iv.  5.  4. 

8  Thilo,  Codex  Apoc.,  i.  267;  Hofmann,  Leben  Jesu,  134;  Jones  on  the  Canon  of 
the  New  Testament,  ii.  134.  According  to  the  hitter,  this  tradition  was  very  generally 
credited  in  early  times,  as  by  Tertullian,  Origen,  Epiphanius.  See  also  Baronius,  who 
defends  it. 

*  Krafit,  Friedlieb,  Robinson,  Wieseler,  EUicott,  Tischendorf. 


444  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

see  the  Lord  some  have  found  in  the  words  which  they  had 
heard,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  should  be  taken  from  the  Jews 
and  given  to  others.  The  time  of  their  visit  is  not  clear. 
Some  place  it  upon  the  evening  of  the  triumphal  entry.'  But 
the  Lord's  language  fits  better  to  the  final  departure  from  the 
temple  than  to  the  time  of  the  entry.  Beside,  if  He  was  now 
in  the  court  of  the  women,  it  explains  the  request  of  the  Greeks 
to  see  Him,  for  if  He  had  been  in  the  outer  court,  all  could 
have  seen  Him,  but  into  the  inner  court  they  could  not  come. 
Upon  these  and  other  grounds  it  is  placed  here  by  many.^  It  is 
not  certain  whether  these  Greeks  did  actually  meet  the  Lord. 
His  words  (verses  23-27)  were  not  addressed  directly  to  them, 
but  they  may  have  been  within  hearing.  Their  coming  is  a 
sign  that  His  end  is  nigh,  and  that  the  great  work  for  which 
He  came  into  the  world  is  about  to  be  fulfilled.  Stier  sets  this 
visit  of  the  Greeks  from  the  west  in  contrast  to  the  visit  of  the 
Magi  from  the  east ;  the  one  at  the  end,  the  other  at  the  beginning 
of  His  life. 

In  reply  to  the  Lord's  prayer  —  "  Glorify  Thy  name  "  (verse 
28)  —  there  "came  a  voice  from  heaven,  I  have  both  glorified  it 
and  will  glorify  it  again."  These  words,  according  to  most 
interpreters,  were  spoken  in  an  audible  voice.  It  is  said  by 
Alford:  "This  voice  can  no  otherwise  be  understood  than  as  a 
plain  articulate  sound,  miraculously  spoken,  heard  by  all  and 
variously  interpreted."  This  would  imply  that  all  present  heard 
the  words  plainly  articulated.  But  this  is  not  said.  They  heard 
a  voice,  yet  some  said,  "  It  thundered,"  and  others,  "An  angel 
spake  to  Him,"  which  could  not  have  been  the  case  if  the  words 
had  been  distinctly  spoken.  Probably,  the  capacity  to  under- 
stand the  voice  was  dependent  upon  each  man's  spiritual  con- 
dition and  receptivity.  To  Jesus,  and  perhaps  to  the  apostles 
and  disciples,  it  was  an  articulate  voice  ;  to  others,  it  was 
indistinct,  yet  they  recognized  it  as  a  voice,  perhaps  of  an  angel; 
to  others  still,  it  was  mere  sound  as  if  it  thundered.'  Townsend 
would  make  it  an  answer  to  the  Greeks  who  desired  to  see 
Jesus,  or,  at  least,  spoken  in  their  hearing.     "We  find,  however, 


1  Gresvvell,  KraSt,  Ebrard,  Townsend,  Stier. 

2  Robinson,  Lichtenstcin,  Tischendorf,  Wieseler,  EUicott,  Gardiner. 
*  See  Luthardt,  in  loco. 


Part  VII.]  THE  VOICE   FROM   HEAVEN.  445 

its  true  significance  if  we  compare  it  with  those  other  testimonies 
of  the  Father  to  Him  at  His  baptism  and  at  His  transfiguration 
(Matt.  iii.  17;  xvii.  5). 

After  Jesus  had  finished  His  words  in  the  temple,  He  "  de- 
parted, and  did  hide  Himself  from  them"  (verse  36).  This  was, 
according  to  our  order,  on  Tuesday  evening,  but  others,  as  Godet, 
put  it  on  Wednesday  evening.  His  departing  and  hiding  are 
not  to  be  understood  of  a  night's  sojourn  in  Bethany,  but  of  His 
final  departure  from  the  temple,  and  His  sojourn  in  retirement 
till  His  arrest.  His  public  work  is  over.  He  appears  no  more 
in  His  Father's  house  as  a  preacher  of  righteousness.  Hence- 
forth all  His  words  of  wisdom  are  addressed  to  His  own  disci- 
ples. The  statements  in  verses  37-43  are  those  of  the  Evangel- 
ist. But  when  were  the  Lord's  words  (verses  44-50)  spoken? 
Most  regard  them  as  a  citation  by  the  Evangelist  from  earlier 
discourses,  and  introduced  here  as  confirming  his  own  remarks.' 
"The  words  were  spoken  by  Jesus;  the  selection  is  made  by 
John"  (M.  and  M.);  but  according  to  others,  they  were  spoken 
by  the  Lord  at  this  time. 

The  allusion  of  the  disciples  to  the  size  and  splendor  of  the 
temple  buildings  seems  to  have  been  occasioned  by  His  words 
to  the  Pharisees  foretelling  its  desolation  (Matt,  xxiii.  38).  That 
so  substantial  and  massive  a  structure  could  become  desolate 
was  incredible  to  them,  for  they  had  as  yet  no  distinct  conception 
that  God  was  about  to  cast  off  His  own  covenant  people,  and 
bring  the  worship  He  had  appointed  to  an  end.  This  manifest- 
ation of  incredulity  led  Him  to  say  with  great  emphasis,  that 
the  buildings  should  be  utterly  destroyed,  not  one  stone  being 
left  upon  another.  This  was  literally  fulfilled  in  the  destruction 
of  the  temple,  though  some  of  the  foundation  walls  were  not 
wholly  cast  down. 

It  was  probably  at  the  close  of  the  day,  whether  before  or 
after  sunset  we  cannot  tell,  that  He  sat  down  on  the  Mount  of 
Olives  over  against  the  temple.  The  city  lay  in  full  view  before 
Him.  Mark  (xiii.  3)  speaks  of  only  four  of  the  apostles  — 
Peter   and   James   and    John   and    Andrew,    who    asked   Him 


L 


1  So   Lichteustein,  Meyer,  Alford,   Tholuck,  Tischendorf,  Godet ;  Luthardt  and 
Wieseler  make  them  to  have  been  spoken  to  the  disciples. 


446  THE   LIFE  OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  VII. 

privately  when  these  things  should  be.  Matthew  (xxiv.  3)  states 
that  "the  disciples  came  unto  Him  privately";  Luke  (xxi.  7), 
that  "  they  asked  Him."  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Mark 
gives  the  more  accurate  account,  and  that  these  four  only  were 
present.'  The  remainder  of  the  Twelve  may  have  preceded 
Him  on  the  way  to  Bethany.  Alexander  supposes  that  all  were 
present,  and  that  "  the  four  are  only  mentioned  as  particularly 
earnest  in  making  this  inquiry,  although  speaking  with  and  for 
the  rest;  "  Ellicott  takes  the  same  view. 

If  His  words  were  spoken  to  these  four  only,  it  implies  that 
the  predictions  He  uttered  could  not  at  that  time  be  fittingly 
spoken  to  the  body  of  the  apostles;  if  to  the  apostles  only,  it 
shows  that  He  would  not  have  His  predictions  made  public,  as 
they  would  greatly  have  angered  the  Jews  and  their  publicity 
have  answered  no  good  purpose. 

The  announcement  to  the  disciples  (Matt.  xxvi.  1,  2)  that 
"  after  two  days  was  the  Passover,  when  the  Son  of  Man  should 
be  betrayed  to  be  crucified,"  was  probably  made  soon  after  His 
discourse  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  so  upon  the  evening  of 
Tuesday.  Perhaps  He  wished  distinctly  to  remind  them  that 
His  coming  in  glory  must  be  preceded  by  His  death  and  resur- 
rection. Whether  it  was  made  to  all  the  disciples  or  to  the 
four,  is  not  certain,  but  probably  to  all.  Alford  thinks  that  "  it 
gives  no  certainty  as  to  the  time  when  the  words  were  said;  we 
do  not  know  whether  the  current  day  was  included  or  other- 
wise." If,  however,  Thursday  was  the  14  th  Nisan,  which  was 
popularly  regarded  as  the  first  day  of  the  Passover,  according 
to  the  rule  already  adopted  excluding  one  of  the  extremes  and 
including  the  other,  the  announcement  was  made  on  Tuesday.^ 
The  meeting  of  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes  and  elders  at 
the  palace  of  Caiaphas  for  consultation,  was  upon  the  same 
evening.  This  may  be  inferred,  at  least,  from  Matthew's  words 
(xxvi.  3),  "Then  assembled  together,"  etc.,  the  assembly  being 
on  the  same  day  when  the  words  were  spoken  (verse  2).^  From 
the  fact  that  the  council  met  at  the  palace  of  Caiaphas,  and 
also  that  its  session  was  in  the  evening,  we  may  infer  that  it  was 


1  Lichtenstein,  Alford,  Lange,  Greswell,  McClellan. 

*  Meyer,  Lichtenstein,  DeWette. 

3  Meyer;  Ellicott  places  it  on  Wednesday. 


Part    VII]     CONSULTATION  OF  PRIESTS  AND   ELDERS.     447 

an  extraordinary  meeting,  held  for  secret  consultation.'  (See 
Luke  xxii.  4,  where  mention  is  made  of  "the  captains";  as  to 
the  regular  place  of  session,  the  hall  Gazith,  see  Lightfoot,  in 
loco;  Schiirer,  ii.  1.  190.)  It  may  readily  be  supposed  that  the 
severe  language  of  the  Lord  had  greatly  enraged  His  enemies, 
and  that  they  felt  the  necessity  of  taking  immediate  steps 
against  Him.  But  they  dared  not  arrest  Him  during  the  feast 
because  of  the  people,  and  determined  to  postpone  it  till  the 
feast  was  past.  Thus,  it  may  be,  at  the  same  hour  when  Jesus 
was  foretelling  that  He  should  suffer  at  the  Passover,  His 
enemies  were  resolving  that  they  would  not  arrest  Him  during 
the  feast.''  But  the  divine  prediction  was  accomplished  in  a 
way  they  had  not  anticipated.  Judas,  one  of  the  Twelve,  coming 
to  them,  offered  for  money  to  betray  Him  into  their  hands. 
They  at  once  made  a  covenant  with  him,  and  he  watched  for  an 
opportunity.  Still  it  does  not  appear  that  he  designed  to  betray 
Him  during  the  feast,  and  his  action  on  the  evening  following 
the  Paschal  supper  was,  as  we  shall  see,  forced  upon  him  by  the 
Lord.  Whether  Judas  presented  himself  to  the  council  at  their 
session,  is  not  said  ;  but  it  is  not  improbable  that,  hearing  the 
Lor(i^'s  rebukes  of  their  hypocrisy,  and  seeing  how  great  was 
their  exasperation  against  Him,  he  had  watched  their  move- 
ments, and  learned  of  their  assembly  at  the  high  priest's  palace. 
This  gave  him  the  wished-for  opportunity  to  enter  into  an  agree- 
ment with  them. 

Assuming  without  further  discussion  the  correctness  of  the 
order  of  events  already  given  —  that  the  Lord  reached  Bethany  on 
Friday  the  8th  Nisan,  that  a  supper  was  given  Him  that  evening  or 
the  next,  that  He  made  His  entry  into  the  city  on  Sunday  the  10th, 
that  He  cleansed  the  temple  on  Monday  the  11th,  that  He  taught  in 
the  temple  on  Tuesday  the  12th,  and  that  He  spent  "Wednesday  the 
13th  in  retirement,  there  are  still  some  minor  points  to  be  examined; 
and  here,  as  in  our  examination  of  other  points  during  this  week,  we 


1  Tradition  makes  the  bargain  with  Judas  to  have  been  entered  into  at  the  coun- 
try house  of  Caiaphas,  the  ruins  of  which  are  still  shown  upon  the  summit  of  the  Hill  of 
EvU  Counsel.  The  tradition  is  not  ancient,  but  it  is  mentioned  as  a  singular  fact,  that 
the  monument  of  Annas,  who  may  have  had  a  country  seat  near  his  son-in-law,  is  found 
in  this  neighborhood.    Williams,  H.  C,  ii.  496. 

2  Some  understand  that  they  proposed  to  arrest  Him  before  the  feast.  So  Neander. 
Ewald;  see  contra,  Meyer,  in  loco. 


448  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VTT. 

are  to  keep  clearly  in  mind  that  the  Jews  computed  the  days  from 
sunset  to  sunset. 

(a)  The  time  of  the  supper  at  Bethany,  whether  at  the  beginning 
or  end  of  the  Sabbath  ?  If  the  Lord  reached  Bethany  before  sunset  on 
Friday,  He  might  have  partaken  of  the  opening  Sabbath  meal,  when 
the  Sabbath  lamp  was  lighted,  and  which  was  as  good  and  bountiful 
as  the  family  could  afford.  In  this  case  we  must,  however,  suppose 
that  it  was  known  to  the  givers  of  the  supper  that  He  was  coming, 
and  so  all  necessary  preparations  were  made  before  His  and  the  guest's 
arrival.  But  Lightfoot  and  others  think  it  to  have  been  at  "  the 
going  out  of  the  Sabbath."  This  best  corresponds  to  the  circum- 
stances, and  is  more  generally  received. 

(5)  The  time  when  the  Lord  spake  the  discourse  in  Matthew 
xxiv.,  XXV.,  and  parallels.  No  one  of  the  Evangelists  gives  us  a  dis- 
tinct note  of  time,  but  from  the  fact  that  He  was  sitting  on  the  Mount 
of  Olives  apparently  on  His  way  to  Bethany,  the  natural  inference  is, 
that  it  was  at  the  close  of  Tuesday,  and  the  probability  is  that  it  was 
before  or  soon  after  sunset. 

(c)  The  time  of  the  coming  of  the  Greeks.  This  we  have  put  on 
Tuesday,  after  the  Lord's  words  about  the  widow's  mite.  If  so,  His 
words  sjDoken  in  answer  to  their  request  may  be  regarded  as  the  last 
He  ever  spake  in  the  temple,  and  thus  as  having  a  special  significance. 
It  is  said  (John  xii.  36):  "These  things  spake  Jesus  and  departed, 
and  did  hide  himself  from  them."  The  words  in  verses  44  to  50  are 
not  to  be  understood  as  a  later  address,  but  as  said  by  Godet,  "a 
summary  of  all  the  testimonies  of  Jesus  which  the  Jews  ought  to  have 
believed,  but  which  they  rejected."  (So,  in  substance,  Meyer  and 
most.) 

{d)  The  visit  of  Judas  to  the  chief  priests.  Was  this  on  the 
same  evening  as  the  supper  at  Bethany,  and  after  it,  or  four  days  later, 
either  on  Tuesday  evening  or  on  Wednesday  ?  Assuming,  as  we  do, 
that  the  supper  was  on  the  evening  following  the  Sabbath,  and  that 
Judas  was  then  meditating  liis  treachery,  why  should  he  delay  so 
long  to  seek  out  the  chief  priests?  It  may  be  that  he  had  formed  the 
purpose  to  betray  Him,  but  was  made  to  waver  in  it  by  seeing  how 
many  friends  the  Lord  had  among  the  people,  and  the  evident  power- 
lessness  of  the  rulers  to  arrest  Him.  It  may  have  been  the  Lord's 
words  addressed  to  the  disciples,  which  he  heard:  "Ye  know  that 
after  two  days  is  the  Passover,  and  the  Son  of  Man  is  betrayed  to  be 
crucified,"  and  which  showed  to  him  the  impolicy  and  danger  of 
any  longer  delay,  so  that  he  hastened  that  same  evening  to  make  his 
bargain  with  them.     The  note  of  time  (Matt.  xxvi.  14),  "then  —  rdre 


Part  VII.]    DISCOURSE   ON   THE   MOUNT   OF  OLIVES.  449 

—  Judas  went  unto  the  chief  priests, "  refers  back  to  the  events  in 
verses  1  to  5,  and  not  to  the  supper.  It  cannot  be  decided  with  any 
certainty  whether  the  consultation  at  the  palace  of  Caiaphas  was  held 
on  Tuesday  or  Wednesday,  but  from  the  words  of  Matthew,  "From 
that  time  he  sought  opportunity  to  betray  Him,"  the  earlier  period  is 
preferable. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that,  although  the  Lord  spake  early  in  His  min- 
istry (Matt.  viii.  12)  of  the  casting  out  of  "the  children  of  the  king- 
dom," and  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles,  yet  it  was  not  till  this  time 
that  He  foretold  the  destruction  of  the  holy  city.  On  the  day  of  His 
entry  when  He  came  in  view  of  it,  "  He  wept  over  it"  as  not  knowing 
the  time  of  its  visitation,  and  therefore  to  be  given  into  the  hands  of 
its  enemies.  (See  also  Matt.  xxii.  7.)  He  did  not,  however,  speak 
specitically  of  the  temple  and  its  destruction  till  His  final  departure 
from  it  (Matt.  xxiv.  1),  unless  we  regard  His  words  in  Luke  (xxi. 
20  fl[.)  as  spoken  earlier  in  the  day. 

It  is  in  question  whether  the  Lord's  discourse  in  ]\ratthew  xxiv. 
and  XXV.  is  to  be  identified  with  that  in  Luke  xxi.  5  fi".  They  are 
said  by  some  to  be  distinct  discourses,  and  spoken  at  diflTerent  places 
and  times :  one  during  the  day  and  in  the  temple,  the  other  at  even- 
ing and  on  the  Mount  of  Olives.  It  is  said  by  Meyer:  "There  is  no 
trace  in  Luke  that  this  discourse  was  spoken  on  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
but  belongs  to  the  transactions  in  the  temple."  The  same  conclusion 
is  reached  by  some  on  internal  grounds.  (See  Marquis  in  the  Luth- 
eran Qt.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1887.)  It  is  a  point  which  cannot  be  discussed 
here ;  but  it  may  be  remarked  that  Matthew's  words  seem  to  embrace 
some  events  subsequent  in  time  to  those  foretold  in  Luke.  It  may  be 
that  some  of  the  predictions  given  by  the  former  which  do  not  find 
any  obvious  applications  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus, 
may  look  forward  to  events  yet  to  come,  since  it  is  plain  that  God's 
purpose  in  the  Jews  is  not  yet  accomplished.  His  declaration, 
"  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  words  shall  not  pass 
away,"  implies  that  His  predictions  run  far  into  the  future,  and  can- 
not be  fully  comprehended  till  the  consummation  is  reached. 

We  have  still  to  ask  how  the  disciples  understood  the  Lord's  pre- 
diction of  the  overthrow  of  the  temple  in  its  relation  to  the  Messianic 
kingdom.  It  must  at  this  time  have  been  plain  to  them  that  the 
rulers  would  not  receive  Him  as  the  Messiah,  and  that  if  He  was  to 
reign  in  Jerusalem,  He  must  cast  them  out.  It  may  have  been  this 
establishment  of  His  authority  which  they  understood  by  His  "com- 
ing"—  TTapovaia  —  regarding  it,  on  the  one  side,  as  the  end  of  the  pres- 
ent age  — 6  aiujv  ovtos  —  and  on  the  other,  as  the  beginning  of  the  new 


450  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII 

—  6  alofv  6  fifKXwv — "  the  world  to  come."  Clear  and  oft-repeated  as 
His  declarations  had  been  respecting  His  death,  they  were  not  under- 
stood; and  therefore,  they  had  no  conception  of  a  resurrection  and 
return  to  earth  as  His  coming ;  nor  did  they  think  of  any  personal 
departure,  unless  they  held  what  Edersheim  (ii.  436)  affirms  to  have 
been  the  general  opinion,  that  "the  Messiah  would  appear,  carry  on 
His  work,  then  disappear,  probably  for  forty-five  days,  tlien  re- 
appear, and  destroy  the  hostile  powers  of  the  world."  That  a  period 
of  great  trouble  would  precede  the  setting  up  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom,  was  generally  believed,  and  the  wars  of  that  time  were 
designated  as  the  "travail  pangs"  or  "  birth  throes."  (See  Matt. 
xxiv.  8,  in  R.  V.:  "All  these  things  are  the  beginning  of  travail." 
Hamburger,  ii.  735.)  The  disciples  would  naturally  understand 
that  during  this  time  the  temple  would  be  destroyed,  and  that  the 
Lord  would  rebuild  it  at  His  coming  or  assumption  of  the  kingdom. 

Wednesday,   6th  April,  13th  Nisan,  783.     A.D.  30. 

During  this  day  the  Lord  remained  in  seclusion  at  Bethany. 

The  Lord  left  the  temple  for  the  last  time  on  Tuesday  after- 
noon. His  public  labors  were  ended.  There  remained,  how- 
ever, a  few  hours  before  the  Passover.  How  was  this  period 
spent?  We  can  well  believe  that  some  part  of  it  was  spent  alone 
that  He  might  enjoy  that  free  communion  with  God  which  He 
had  so  earnestly  sought  in  the  midst  of  His  active  labors,  and 
which  was  now  doubly  dear  to  Him  in  view  of  His  speedy 
death.  Some  part  of  it  also  was  doubtless  devoted  to  His  disci- 
ples, giving  them  such  counsel  and  encouragement  as  was  de- 
manded by  the  very  peculiar  and  trying  circumstances  in  which 
they  were  placed.  That  Wednesday  was  spent  in  retirement  is 
generally  admitted,'  but  is  questioned  by  Stroud,  who  affirms 
that  Jesus  returned  to  Jerusalem  on  the  mOrning  of  that  day, 
and  places  at  this  time  all  in  John  xii.  20  ff. 

Thursday,  6th  April,  14th  Nisan,  783.     A.  D.  30. 

From  Bethany  the  Lord  sends  Peter  and  John  into  the  Matt.  xxvi.  17-19 

city  to  prepare  the  Passover.     He  describes  a  man  whom  Mark  xiv.  l^-lb'. 

they  would  meet,  and  who  would  show  them  a  room  Luke  xxii.  7-13, 
furnished,  where  they  should  make  ready  for  the  supper. 


>  Wieseler,  Robinson,  EUicott 


Part  VII.]    PETER  AND  JOHN  PREPARE  THE  PASSOVER.     451 

He  remains  at  Bethauy  till  toward  evening,   when  He    Matt.  xxvi.  20. 
enters  the  city,  and  goes  to  the  room  where  the  supper    Mark  xiv.  17. 
is  to  be  eaten.  Luke  xxii.  14, 

At  this  feast  the  Jews  divided  themselves  into  companies  or 
households,  of  not  less  than  ten  nor  more  than  twenty  persons; 
and  these  together  consumed  the  paschal  lamb.'  One  of  the 
number,  acting  as  the  representative  of  all,  presented  the  lamb 
in  the  court  of  the  temple,  and  aided  the  Levites  in  its  sacrifice. 
The  victim  was  then  carried  away  by  the  offerer  to  the  house 
where  it  was  to  be  eaten,  and  there  wholly  consumed.  On  this 
occasion  Peter  and  John  acted  as  the  representatives  of  the  Lord 
and  of  His  apostles  at  the  temple,  and  provided  the  bread,  wine, 
bitter  herbs,  and  all  that  was  necessary  for  the  proper  celebra- 
tion of  the  feast;  and  it  is  probable,  therefore,  that  they  went 
early  in  the  day,  though  the  cleansing  of  the  house  from  leaven 
was  the  work  of  the  owner.  It  appears  that,  up  to  this  time,  the 
disciples  did  not  know  where  the  Lord  would  eat  the  Passover, 
and,  as  the  hour  drew  nigh,  inquired  of  Him  (Matt.  xxvi.  17). 
The  ground  of  His  silence  is  supposed  to  have  been  the  desire 
to  keep  Judas  in  ignorance  of  the  place,  lest  he  should  attempt 
to  arrest  the  Lord  there.  According  to  Mark  and  Luke,  the  two 
apostles  were  to  go  to  the  city,  and  a  man  should  meet  them  bear- 
ing a  pitcher  of  water,  whom  they  should  follow  into  whatsoever 
house  he  entered.  There  they  should  find  a  guest-chamber, 
furnished  and  prepared,  which  the  master  of  the  house  should 
place  at  their  disposal.  Matthew  says  nothing  of  their  meeting 
the  man  with  the  pitcher,  but  makes  the  two  to  have  gone 
directly  to  the  house.  Meyer  supposes  that  Matthew  follows  the 
early  tradition,  which  represents  the  master  of  the  house  as  a 
disciple  of  Jesus,  who  had,  earlier  in  the  week,  arranged  with 
Him  for  the  use  of  the  guest-chamber;  and  that  Mark  and  Luke 
follow  a  later  tradition,  which  represents  the  Lord  as  ignorant 
of  the  man,  but  giving  directions  to  the  two  through  prophetic 
foresight.  There  is  no  need  of  thus  supposing  two  traditions. 
Matthew  passes  over  in  silence  the  incident  of  the  man  with  the 
pitcher,  upon  what  grounds  we  cannot  state,  but  this  silence  is 
no  way  inconsistent  with  the  statements  of  the  other  Evangelista 


1  Exod.  xii.  3,  4;  Josephus,  War,  vi.  9.  3. 


452  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VTI 

From  ]\Iark  and  Liike  it  is  apparent  that  no  agreement  had  l)een 
made  by  the  Lord  for  the  room ;  else  He  would  not  have  given 
such  directions  to  the  two  apostles,  but  have  sent  them  directly 
to  the  house.'  Whether  the  master  of  the  house  was  an  entire 
stranger  to  Jesus,  or  a  concealed  disciple,  like  Joseph  or  Nicode- 
mus,  or  an  open  follower,  perhaps  the  father  of  the  Evangelist 
Mark,  is  not  certain.^  The  Lord's  message  to  Him,  "  My  time 
is  at  hand,  I  will  keep  the  Passover  at  thy  house,  with  my 
disciples,"  seems,  however,  to  presuppose  some  previous  ac- 
quaintance; as  also  the  phrase,  "the  Master  saith."  This,  how- 
ever, is  not  necessary,  if,  as  said  by  Alexander,  "  the  whole  pro- 
ceeding be  regarded  as  extraordinary,  and  the  result  secured  by 
a  special  superhuman  influence." 

It  is  at  this  point  that  we  meet  the  difficult  questions  con- 
nected with  the  last  Passover,  but  before  we  enter  upon  them, 
it  is  necessary  to  have  clearly  before  us  the  origin  and  nature 
of  this  feast,  and  the  peculiarities  of  its  observance. 

THE   PASSOVER. 

1.  Its  origin  and  design.  It  was  instituted  in  commemoration 
of  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  in  Egypt  from  the  destroying  angel 
when  all  the  first-born  of  the  Egyptians  were  slain  (Ex.  xii.  14  ff.). 
This  remarkable  deliverance  was  ever  after  to  be  commemorated  by  a 
feast  of  seven  days,  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  —  to.  &i;vfjia.  But 
distinct  from  this  feast  and  introductory  to  it,  was  the  paschal  su]> 
per,  or  "the Lord's  passover,"  —  to  irda-xa.  The  people  being  divided 
into  households  or  families  of  not  less  than  ten  or  more  than  twenty 
persons,  a  lamb  was  slain  for  each  family,  and  afterwards  eaten  with 
unleavened  bread  and  bitter  herbs.  Now  followed  a  feast  of  seven 
days's  continuance  in  which  the  bread  eaten  was  unleavened. 

2.  The  paschal  supper.  Distinguishing  the  paschal  supper  from 
the  feast  following,  we  ask  the  manner  of  its  celebration.  A  lamb  or 
goat  was  to  be  selected  on  the  10th  Nisan,  a  male  without  blemish, 
and  slain  on  the  14th  "between  the  evenings"  (Ex.  xii.  6;  Levit. 
xxiii.  5;  Num.  ix.  3).  The  expression,  "between  the  evenings,"  was 
generally  understood  by  the  Jews  of  the  period  from  the  decline  of 
the  sun  to  its  setting,  or  from  3-6  p.  m.     This  was  without  doubt  the 


1  Alford,  Alexander. 

2  See  B3Tiaeus,  i.  480,  who  gives  an  account  of  early  opinions.  In  proof  of  His 
discipleship,  Edersheim  refers  to  the  fact  that  the  Lord  asked  for  a  common  apartment 
but  was  assigned  "  the  upper  chamber,"  the  large-it  and  best  room. 


I 


Part  VII.]      PASCHAL  LAMB  AND   THANK   OFFERINGS.      453 

ruling  mode  of  computation  in  the  Lord's  day  (Josephus,  War,  vi.  9.  3 ; 
Antiq.  V.  4.  3;  Lightfoot,  Temple  Service,  ix.  139;  Eders.,  ii.  490). 
The  Karaites  and  Samaritans,  however,  referred  it  to  the  period  be- 
tween sunset  and  dark,  or  from  6-7  p.  m.  (Winer,  ii.  198).  Wieseler 
refers  it  to  a  period  a  little  before  and  a  little  after  the  going  down 
of  the  sun,  say  from  5-7  P.  M.,  citing  Deut.  xvi.  6  in  proof.  Ewald 
makes  it  to  include  three  hours  before  and  three  hours  after  sunset. 

The  paschal  lamb  was  originally  slain  by  the  head  of  each  family 
in  his  own  house,  but  afterward  in  the  court  of  the  temple  where 
stood  the  brazen  altar  (Deut.  xvi.  2-6).  (As  to  the  changes  between 
the  early  and  later  usages,  see  Eders.,  "Temple,"  180  ff.).  After  it 
was  slain  came  the  supper  set  out  in  some  place  prepared.  This  was 
upon  the  evening  following  the  14th  Nisan;  or,  since  the  Jews 
counted  the  day  to  begin  at  sunset,  on  the  beginning  of  the  15th. 
The  lamb  was  to  be  wholly  consumed  before  morning  either  by  eat- 
ing or  by  fire. 

3.  Feast  of  unleavened  bread.  The  feast  of  unleavened  bread, 
though  to  be  distinguished  from  the  paschal  supper,  yet  began  at  the 
same  time,  inasmuch  as  all  leaven  was  removed  from  the  house  by 
noon  of  the  14th,  and  no  leavened  bread  eaten  after  this.  But  while 
the  paschal  supper  was  with  unleavened  bread,  as  was  the  rest  of  the 
feast,  it  had  two  elements  peculiar  to  itself,  the  lamb  and  the  bitter 
herbs.  In  one  sense  it  was  the  beginning  of  the  feast,  but  in  another, 
it  was  regarded  as  distinct  from  it.  As  the  paschal  lamb  was  wholly 
consumed  at  the  paschal  supper,  and  as  unleavened  bread  would  but 
poorly  furnish  a  festal  table,  other  food  must  be  provided,  and  was 
done  in  the  Chagigah.  These  embraced  the  sacrifices  of  sheep  and 
bullocks  voluntarily  made.  Concerning  them  Maimonides  (quoted  by 
Ainsworth  on  Deut.  xvi.  2)  says:  "  When  they  offer  the  passover  in 
the  first  mouth,  they  offer  it  with  peace-offerings  on  the  14th  day,  of 
the  flock  and  of  the  hei-d;  and  this  is  called  the  Chagigah,  a  feast 
offering  of  the  14th  day.  And  of  this  it  is  said  that  "thou  shalt 
sacrifice  the  passover  to  the  Lord  thy  God  of  the  flock  and  the  herd." 

To  understand  the  relation  of  the  Chagigah  to  the  Passover  in 
general,  we  must  remember  that  this  festival  was  the  commemoration 
of  a  great  national  deliverance,  and,  as  such,  to  be  kept  with  thanks- 
giving and  joy.  The  paschal  supper,  strictly  speaking,  seems  to  have 
had  much  less  of  the  joyous  element  in  it  than  the  rest  of  the  feast. 
As  said  by  Lightf oot :  ' '  The  eating  of  the  lamb  was  the  very  least 
part  of  the  joy;  a  thing  rubbing  up  the  remembrance  of  affliction, 
rather  than  denoting  gladness  and  making  merry."  The  lamb,  which 
constituted  the  chief  part  of  the  supper,  reminded  them  of  that  fearful 


454  THE   LIFE   OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII 

night  when  all  the  first-born  of  Egypt  died;  the  bitter  herbs  with 
which  it  was  eaten,  reminded  them  of  the  bitterness  of  their  Egyjjtian 
bondage;  and  all  the  attendant  circumstances  would  tend  to  beget 
seriousness  and  reflection.  The  festival  character  of  the  season  ap- 
peared much  more  upon  the  succeeding  day  when  the  peace-oflferings 
voluntarily  presented  to  God  in  token  of  thankfulness  were  eaten. 

It  was  the  word  of  the  Lord:  "None  shall  apj^ear  before  me 
empty"  (Ex.  xxiii.  15),  and  this  was  understood  of  the  burnt -offerings 
and  peace-offerings  in  addition  to  the  paschal  lamb.  It  is  said  by 
Maimonides  (quoted  by  Ainsworth,  in  loco):  "The  rejoicing  spoken 
of  at  the  feasts  is  that  he  off"ers  peace-offerings  ....  and  these 
are  called  peace-ofierings  of  the  rejoicing  of  the  feast  "  (Deut.  xxvii.  7). 
The  day  when  they  were  offered  is  called  "the  first  great  day  of  the 
feast";  at  the  passover,  on  the  15th  Nisan.  But  were  they  also  eaten 
at  the  paschal  supper?  That  they  sometimes  were,  is  admitted;  but, 
according  to  Lightfoot  (on  John  xviii.  28),  only  when  the  lamb  was 
not  sufficient  for  the  company.  It  is  said  by  Edersheim  ("Temple," 
186):  "The  Chagigah  might  be  twofold.  The  first  Chagigah  was 
offered  on  the  14th  Nisan,  the  day  of  the  paschal  sacrifice,  and 
formed  afterwards  part  of  the  paschal  supper.  The  second  Chagigah 
was  offered  on  the  15th  Nisan,  on  the  first  day  of  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread."  But  the  first  was  only  offered  when  the  lamb  was 
not  sufficient  for  a  meal.  The  usual  time  for  the  Chagigah  was  on 
the  15th  after  the  morning  sacrifice,  and  with  them  the  rejoicing  was 
more  directly  connected. 

4.  The  wave  sheaf.  The  ceremonies  of  the  second  day  of  the 
feast  —  the  16th  Nisan  —  were  peculiar,  and  are  important  to  be 
noted.  Upon  this  day  the  first  fruits  of  the  barley  harvest  were 
brought  to  the  temple,  and  waved  before  the  Lord  to  consecrate  the 
harvest,  and  not  till  this  was  done  might  any  one  begin  his  reaping 
(Levit.  xxiii.  10-12;  Josephus,  Antiq.,  iii.  10.  5).  (As  to  the  connec- 
tion of  this  rite  with  the  general  scope  of  the  passover,  see  Winer, 
ii.  201 ;  Bahr,  ii.  638.) 

Thus  we  find  in  the  paschal  festival  three  distinct  solemnities: 
First.  The  killing  of  the  paschal  lamb  on  the  afternoon  of  the  14th 
Nisan,  and  the  eating  of  it  the  evening  following,  or  on  the  begin- 
ning of  the  15th.  Second.  The  feast  of  unleavened  bread  exclusive 
of  the  paschal  supper,  and  continuing  to  the  close  of  the  21st  day 
of  Nisan.  Third.  The  offering  of  the  first  fruits  of  the  barley  harvest 
on  the  16th  Nisan,  or  second  day  of  the  feast.  To  the  latter  no  dis- 
tinct allusion  is  made  by  the  Evangelists. 

The  removal  of  the  leaven  from  their  houses,  the  preparations  for 
the  paschal  sup2)er,  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  lamb,  all  taking  place  on 


Part  VII.]      OBSERVANCE   OF   THE   FEAST   SABBATHS.        455 

the  14th  Nisan,  this  day  was  popularly  called  the  first  day  of  the 
feast,  thus  extending  it  to  eight  days.'  The  Evangelists  follow  this 
popular  usage  (Matt.  xxvi.  17;  Mark  xiv.  12;  Luke  xxii.  7).  Upon 
each  of  the  seven  days  of  the  feast  was  offered  a  sacrifice  for  the  whole 
people  (Num.  xxviii.  19-24).  The  first  and  last  days  of  the  feast,  or 
the  loth  and  21st,  were  holy  days,  or  sabbaths  (Lev.  xxiii.  7,  8).  But 
these  feast  sabbaths  do  not  seem  ever  to  have  been  regarded  as  equal 
in  sacredness  to  the  week-Sabbaths;  and  it  is  important  that  the  dis- 
tinction between  them  should  be  clearly  seen,  as  it  has  an  important 
bearing  upon  several  points  to  be  hereafter  discussed. 

5.  Feast  Sabbaths.  Besides  the  weekly  Sabbath,  there  were  seven 
days  of  the  year  that  had  a  sabbatical  character:  the  first  and  seventh 
of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread;  the  day  of  Pentecost;  the  first  and 
the  tenth  of  the  seventh  month;  and  the  first  and  eighth  of  the  feast 
of  Tabernacles.  Of  these,  one,  the  tenth  of  the  seventh  month,  the 
day  of  Atonement,  was  put  on  the  same  footing  as  the  weekly  Sabbath 
in  respect  to  labor.  No  work  at  all  could  be  done  upon  it ;  but  on 
the  other  six  feast  sabbaths  they  could  do  no  servile  work  (Lev.  xxiii. 
3-39).  These  were  called  by  the  Talmudists  "good  days."  It  is  not 
wholly  clear  what  kind  of  work  was  not  servile,  but  the  preparation 
of  food  was  expressly  permitted  (Exod.  xii.  16).  Maimonides  (quoted 
by  Ainsworth)  says:  "All  work  needful  about  meat  is  lawful,  as  kill- 
ing of  beasts,  and  baking  of  bread,  and  kneading  of  dough,  and  the 
like.  But  such  work  as  may  be  done  in  the  evening  of  a  feast  day 
they  do  not  on  a  feast  day,  as  they  may  not  reap,  nor  thrash,  nor  win- 
now, nor  grind  the  corn,  nor  the  like.  Bathing  and  anointing  are 
contained  under  the  general  head  of  meat  and  drink,  and  may  be 
done  on  the  feast  day."  The  penalty  for  doing  servile  work  on  these 
days  was,  according  to  Maimonides,  to  be  beaten;  but  the  penalty 
for  working  on  the  Sabbath  was  death  (Num.  xv.  32-35). 

To  these  feast  sabbaths  we  find  few  allusions  in  Jewish  history, 
either  in  the  Old  Testament  or  in  Josephus.  All  the  violations  of  the 
Sabbath  with  which  the  Lord  was  charged  were  those  of  the  weekly 
Sabbath. 

6.  Use  of  terms.  With  these  preliminary  observations  upon  the 
question  of  time,  we  pass  to  the  consideration  of  the  terms  applied  to 
the  passover,  first  in  the  Old  Testament  and  then  in  the  New.  The 
Hebrew  pesach,  or  Aramaic  pascah,  refers  commonly  to  the  paschal 
lamb.  "Draw  out  and  take  you  a  lamb,  and  kill  the  passover" 
(Ex.  xii.  21).  To  kill  the  passover,  and  to  eat  the  passover,  is  to  kill 
and   eat   the   paschal   lamb  (see   Exod.    xii.   11;   Num.  ix.    2-6;  2 


1  Josephus,  Antiq.,  ii.  15.  1. 


456  THE   LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII, 

Chron.  xxx.  15).  But  as  with  the  flesh  of  the  lamb  unleavened  bread 
was  eaten,  the  phrase  "to  eat  the  passover"  naturally  came  to  em- 
brace the  whole  feast,  including  the  peace  offerings  (Deut.  xvi.  3 ;  2 
Chron.  xxx.  1);  and  on  the  other  hand,  "the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread"  embraced  the  paschal  lamb,  as  well  as  all  the  sacrifices  that 
followed  it  (Deut.  xvi.  16;  2  Chron.  xxx.  21).  In  the  days  of  Josiah, 
he  and  his  princes  gave  small  cattle  and  oxen  for  passovers — ji^esacAm 
(2  Chron.  xxxv.  7-9).  But  some  distinguish  these,  the  lamb  and 
kid  only —  the  small  cattle  —  being  killed  for  the  paschal  supper,  the 
oxen  for  the  peace-offerings.  (So  Schiirer,  12.) '  Thus,  as  the  initial 
act  and  giving  character  to  all  that  followed,  the  word  pe-sr/r/t  became 
a  designation  of  the  feast  in  general.  "To  keep  the  passover,'' 
was  to  observe  all  the  solemnities  of  the  feast  without  distinction 
of  special  acts,  unless  through  the  force  of  the  context  the  meaning 
must  be  limited  to  the  paschal  suj^per.  It  is  thus  used  in  2  Kings 
xxiii.  21 ;  2  Chron.  xxx.  1 ;  2  Chron.  xxxv.  1 ;  Ezek.  xlv.  21. 

From  this  examination  of  the  terms  in  the  Old  Testament,  we 
find  that  there  is  no  exact  discrimination  in  their  use.  Sometimes 
the  passover  and  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  are  expressly  distin- 
guished, and  the  former  limited  to  the  paschal  supper  (Lev,  xxiii.  5, 
6;  Num.  xxviii.  16,  17).  At  other  times  they  are  used  interchange- 
ably. The  precise  meaning  in  each  case  must  be  determined  by  the 
connection  in  which  it  stands. 

We  proceed  to  consider  the  usage  of  these  terms  in  the  New 
Testament.  And  first  their  usage  by  the  Synoptists.  Here  also  the 
term  passover,  rb  Trda-xa,  is  used  in  its  narrowest  sense,  of  the  paschal 
lamb.  Thus  in  Mark  xiv.  12,  "when  they  killed  the  passover";  in 
Luke  xxii.  7,  "  when  the  passover  must  be  killed."  It  is  used  in  the 
large  sense,  including  both  the  sacrifice  of  the  lamb  and  the  supper. 
Matt.  xxvi.  17;  Mark  xiv.  14;  Luke  xxii.  11.  It  is  used  as  a 
designation  of  the  feast  in  its  whole  extent,  Matt.  xxvi.  2;  Luke 
xxii.  1.  (See  also  Mark  xiv.  1.)  That  the  phrase,  "feast  of  un- 
leavened bread, "  rd  (Sfu/ia,  embraced  the  paschal  supper,  appears  from 
Matt.  xxvi.  17;  Mark  xiv.  12;  Luke  xxii.  7. 

Turning  from  the  Synoptists  to  John,  it  is  at  once  apparent  that 
he  generally  uses  the  term  passover,  rh  Trdo-xo,  in  its  largest  sense,  as  em- 
bracing the  whole  feast.  So  ii.  13  and  23;  vi.  4;  xi.  55;  xii.  1;  in 
xiii.  1,  it  is  "the  feast  of  the  passover."  So  also  in  the  references  to 
it  as  the  feast,  ioprr],  iv.  45;    xi.  56;  xii.  12  and  20;  xiii.  29.     In 


1  So  Bleek,  Beitrage,  111.  See  other  constructions  in  Cudworth,  ii.  53-3.  Schiirer, 
AMdemische  Festschrift  ilber,  4>ayelv  t6  naa-xa,  1888,  13,  aflirms  that  at  that  time  both 
of  the  flock  anil  herd  might  be  eaten  at  the  paschal  supper.  As  against  Schiirer,  see 
Eders.,  ii.  5C6,  note;  also  Biesell,  Pentateuch^  108. 


Part  VII.]  THE   TERM   PASSOVER.  467 

xiii.   29,  in  xviii.   28  and  39,  and  in  xix.   14,  its  meaning  is  in  dis- 
pute. 

Our  way  being  now  prepared,  we  enter  upon  the  discussion  of  the 
disputed  points  connected  with  the  Lord's  last  paschal  supper. 
For  the  sake  of  clearness  we  may  divide  them  into  two  classes: 
I.  Those  relating  to  His  legal  observance  of  the  supper,  as  both  to 
the  time,  and  the  manner.  II.  Those  relating  to  the  accounts  which 
the  Evangelists  give  of  the  observance,  whether  in  any,  or  in  what, 
particulars  discrepant. 

I.  1.  The  time.  Did  the  Lord  oteerve  the  legal  prescription  as 
to  the  time,  and  did  He  eat  the  supper  at  the  same  time  as  the  Jews? 
It  is  said  by  some  that  there  were  two  legal  days,  one  of  which  He 
observed ;  while  the  Jews  observed  the  other.  The  ground  of  this  is 
found  in  the  two  ways  of  determining  the  first  day  of  the  month,  and 
consequeutly  the  right  day  of  the  feast,  one  by  astronomical  calcula- 
tion, and  the  other  by  ocular  observation;  and  thus  the  paschal  lamb 
might  be  slain  on  the  14th  Nisan  of  real,  or  tlie  14th  of  apparent, 
time.  One  of  these  modes,  it  is  said,  was  followed  by  the  Sadducees, 
and  the  other  by  the  Pharisees;  Jesus,  with  the  Sadducees,  kept  the 
true  day,  the  Pharisees  and  most  of  the  Jews  the  apparent  day.  If, 
however,  such  a  difference  in  the  mode  of  computation  did  actually 
exist  between  the  Rabbinites  and  Karaites  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  there  is  no  proof  that  it  did  before.'  The  only  way  of 
determining  the  beginning  of  the  month  practised  by  the  Jews  before 
the  capture  of  the  city  by  Titus,  A.  D.  70,  was  the  appearance  of 
the  new  moon.  Thus  there  could  not  have  been,  during  the  Lord's 
ministry,  two  legal  days  for  the  observance  of  the  passover;  and  the 
supposition  that  He,  with  one  part  of  the  Jews,  rightly  observed 
Thursday  as  astronomically  correct,  and  that  another  part  rightly 
observed  Friday  as  determined  by  the  appearance  of  the  new  moon,  is 
without  any  foundation. 

A  modification  of  this  view  has  lately  been  presented  by  Serno.'^ 
He  supposes  that,  as  the  moon  in  some  sections  of  the  country  might 
be  seen  at  its  first  appearance,  and  in  others  be  hidden  by  the  clouds, 
and  thus  a  difference  in  computation  arise,  the  first  day  of  the  feast 
was  doubled,  and  the  paschal  supper  was  lawfully  eaten  on  either. 
But  this  was  true  only  of  the  Jews  living  without  Palestine,  and  not 
of  those  within  it.  When  the  authorities  at  Jerusalem  had  determined 
the  first  of  the  month,  all  succeeding  days  were  reckoned  from  it;  and 


1  Winer,  ii.  150;  Pauliis,  iii.  486. 

2  Der  Tag  des  letzten  Passahinahles.    Berlin,  1859,  35  ff. 

20 


458  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

if  a  Jew  from  any  distant  part  of  the  land  had  mistaken  the  daj'  of  the 
month  through  ignorance  of  the  appearing  of  the  moon,  he  must  make 
the  later  feast  days  conform  to  those  fixed  upon  by  the  Sanhedrin. 
Even  if  the  latter  had  erred,  their  decision  was  final.  Nor  was  an  ex- 
ception made,  as  affirmed  by  Serno,  in  favor  of  the  Galilaeans,  so  that  the 
Lord  following  their  usage  could  keep  the  feast  a  day  earlier  than  the 
citizens  of  Judaea.     (See  Langen,  87.) 

A  little  different  position  is  taken  by  Cudworth  {True  Notion  oj 
the  Lord^s  Supper^  ii.  528),  who  says,  that  the  Jews  having  erred  this 
year  in  the  day,  placing  it  too  late,  the  Lord  corrected  the  error,  and 
directed  the  sujoper  to  be  prepared  at  the  legal  time,  on  Thursday 
evening.  He  affirms,  also,  that  it  was  "a  custom  among  the  Jews 
in  such  doubtful  cases  as  these,  which  oftentimes  fell  out,  to  permit 
the  feasts  to  be  solemnized,  or  passover  killed  on  two  serial  days 
together."  He  quotes  Scaliger  to  the  same  effect.  But  all  this  is 
without  good  basis.  There  is  not  any  sufficient  evidence  that  the 
paschal  supper  ever  was,  or  could  have  been,  observed  upon  two  suc- 
cessive days. 

Some  have  affirmed  that  a  second  day  of  sacrifice  was  made  neces- 
sary through  the  multitude  of  the  paschal  lambs  to  be  slain,  and  there- 
fore permitted  by  the  authorities.  But  Josephus,  who  (as  already 
quoted)  mentions  the  great  number  of  the  sacrifices,  says  nothing  of 
this  difficulty,  nor  do  contemporaneous  writers  refer  to  it.  (See  Sepp, 
vi.  41.) 

We  find,  then,  no  good  grounds  for  believing  that  the  Jews  re- 
cognized two  distinct  days  as  equally  legal  for  the  paschal  solemnities ; 
or  that,  through  error  of  com2:)utation,  they  observed  the  wrong  day, 
and  the  Lord  the  riglit  one. 

2.  It  is  said  that  the  Lord  kept  the  passover  on  Thursday,  at  the 
appointed  time,  but  that  the  Jews  delayed  it  till  the  next  evening. 
The  ground  of  this  delay  is  found  in  the  statement,  that  when  the  loth 
Nisan,  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  and  so  a  sabbath  (Lev.  xxiii.  7,  8), 
fell  upon  Friday,  and  thus  two  sabbaths,  the  feast  sabbath  and  week 
sabbath,  would  immediately  follow  each  other,  the  Jews  united  them 
in  one,  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  paschal  lamb  on  the  14th  was  post- 
poned to  the  15th.  Thus  the  Lord,  according  to  the  law,  ate  the 
paschal  supper  on  Thursday  evening,  but  the  Jews  on  Friday 
evening.'  But  this  explanation  has  no  sufficient  basis,  as  there  is 
no  room  for  doubt  that  such  changes  of  the  feasts,  and  particularly 


•  So  Calvin,  on  Matt.  sxvi.  17,  who  remarks  that  the  Jews  affirm  that  this  was  done 
by  them  after  their  return  from  Babylon,  and  by  God's  express  direction.  See  Maldona 
tus,  in  loco,  who  takes  the  same  view. 


Part  VI I.J       ANTICIPATION   OF   THE   PASSOVER.  459 

the  rule  forbidding  that  the  passover  should  fall  on  Friday,  were 
posterior  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  probably  about  400  A.  D." 

Another  ground  of  delay  apjDlying  only  to  this  time,  was  given 
early  by  Eusebius  and  others,  that  the  Jews  were  so  busy  with  their  ac- 
cusations against  Christ  that  they  postponed  the  feast  till  His  trial  and 
crucifixion  should  be  over.  This  is  so  intrinsically  improbable  that 
it  now  finds  no  defenders.  A  modification  of  this  is  still  supported 
by  some:  that  those  most  active  against  Him,  and  who  are  specially 
alluded  to  (John  xviii.  28)  as  not  willing  to  enter  the  judgment  hall, 
did  delay  their  paschal  supper  on  this  account.  ==  This  view  will  be 
hereafter  noticed. 

We  do  not  thus  find  any  proof  that  the  Jews  delayed  the  pass- 
over  after  the  legal  time. 

3.  That  the  Lord  anticipated  the  true  day  upon  typical  grounds. 
That  He  anticipated  the  day,  was  very  early  affirmed  by  some  of  the 
fathers,  supposing,  that  as  the  true  Paschal  Lamb  —  the  Antitype  — 
He  must  have  suffered  at  the  hour  when  the  typical  lamb  was  slain,  and 
so  upon  the  14th  Nisan.  The  supper  He  observed  must,  therefore, 
have  been  on  the  evening  following  the  13th.  This  point  had  in  the 
first  days  of  the  church  a  special  importance,  because  of  the  controversy 
with  some  of  the  Christian  Jews  in  regard  to  the  binding  force  of  the 
Mosaic  laws.  It  was  asserted  by  them,  that  as  Jesus  kept  the  legal 
passover,  the  paschal  sacrifice  and  supjoer,  these  were  still  binding, 
and  to  be  kept  in  the  Church.  In  reply,  it  was  asserted  by  many  of 
the  Christians  that  He  did  not  eat  the  paschal  supper,  but,  as  the  true 
Paschal  Lamb,  was  slain  at  the  hour  appointed  for  the  sacrifice  of  the 
passover.  In  the  Greek  Church  this  become  by  degrees  the  ruling 
opinion,  and  is  generally  defended  by  her  writers.^  In  the  Latin 
Church,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  generally  denied;  but  in  neither  is 
it  made  an  article  of  faith.  The  question  as  to  the  use  of  leavened  or 
unleavened  bread  in  the  Eucharist  may  have  had  some  influence  upon 
the  matter;  the  Greeks,  using  the  former,  were  led  to  say  that  the 
Lord  used  it  at  the  institution  of  the  rite,  and  that,  therefore,  it  was 
not  the  true  paschal  supper,  at  which  only  unleavened  bread  was 
used;  while  the  Latins,  using  unleavened  bread,  maintained  that  the 
Eucharist  was  instituted  at  the  true  paschal  supper. 

This  view,  that  the  Lord  of  His  own  authority  anticipated  the 
paschal  supper,  because  of  its  antiquity,  has  found  much  favor;  and  is 


1  Wichelhaup,  203;  Panlus,  iii.  487,  note;  Cudworth,  ii.  524;  Roth,  15  fif. 

2  Fairbairn,  Her.  Man.,  .382;  Wordsworth,  in  loco. 

3  See  Maldonatus,  Matt.  xxvi.  1 :  U/  rei'Uas  Jigurae  respondereU  et  verus  agnus 
eodem  die,  quo  (ypicus,  occideretur.    Wichelhaus,  190;  Greswell,  ii.  162  fE. 


4G0  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIJL 

now  supported  by  nian)'. '  The  particular  passages  urged  in  its  support 
■will  be  later  considered. 

But,  beside  other  objections  drawn  from  the  accounts  of  the 
Synoptists,  it  was  intrinsically  impossible  that  He  could  have  antici- 
])ated  it.  The  paschal  lamb  must  have  been  slain  in  the  temple  by  the 
priests,  and  they  would  not  have  aided  in  its  sacrifice  upon  a  day 
which  they  did  not  recognize  as  the  legal  one.  Still  less  would  they 
have  done  this  for  the  Lord  and  His  discii)les.  To  avoid  this  dif- 
ficulty, Greswell  quotes  Philo  (iii.  146)  to  show  that  each  man  was  at 
this  time  his  own  priest,  and  could  slay  the  lamb,  if  he  pleased,  in 
his  owm  dwelling,  and  that  this  was  now  done.  But  the  weight  of 
authority  is  all  against  him.  The  lamb  must  be  slain,  not  in  any 
private  house,  but  in  the  temple,  and  its  blood  sprinkled  upon  the 
altar.  Had  the  Lord  not  done  this,  it  doubtless  would  have  been 
known,  and  have  strengthened  the  feeling  against  Him. 

We  thus  find  it  difficult  to  believe  that  the  Lord  anticipated  the 
paschal  supper,  observing  all  the  legal  prescriptions,  except  that  as  to 
time.  He  who  came  to  fulfill,  not  to  destroy,  the  law,  would  not  in  so 
important  a  matter  have  set  it  aside.  We  may  rather  say,  in  the 
words  of  another :  "There  seem  insuperable  objections  to  the  idea, 
either  that  the  Lord  did  not  keep  the  true  passover,  or  that  He  could 
have  kept  it  according  to  the  law,  unless  on  the  day  recognized  by 

the  Jews  and  their  rulers Moreover,  there  is  something 

very  significant  in  the  Lord  observing  the  legal  type  before  He  ful- 
filled it  anti-typically.  Dying  on  the  15th,  He  rose  again  on  the  17th 
of  the  month,  as  the  passover  had  been  slain  on  the  14th  at  even,  and 
the  first  fruit  omer  or  sheaf  had  been  waved  on  the  16th,  the  like 
interval  of  one  day  occurring  in  both  in  the  type  and  the  antitype." 
It  will  be  seen  that  the  real  question  is,  whether  the  Lord,  being  the 
Antitype,  should  first  have  observed  the  type.  We  cannot  doubt  that 
He  who  came  to  fulfill  the  law,  would  do  this,  and  therefore  that 
He  kept  the  passover  at  the  legal  time.  It  is  not  essential  to  the 
typical  relation,  that  as  the  lamb  was  killed  on  the  afternoon  of  the 
14th  Nisan,  He  should  be  crucified  at  the  same  hour. 

4.  The  manner.  Did  the  Lord  observe  the  legal  prescriptions  as 
to  the  manner  of  the  supper?  It  is  said  by  some  (a)  that  it  was  a 
memorial  supper.  Such  a  memorial  supper,  it  is  said  by  some,  the 
Jews  who  could  not  be  present  at  the  feast,  were  permitted  to  observe 
in  their  own  homes  when  all  the  forms  of  the  passover  were  kej^t. 


>  So  KraflEt,  129;  Greswell,  iii.  1.3.3;  Ellicott,  322;  J.  Mflller,  iiiHerzog'sRcalEncyc, 
i.  22;  Clinton,  ii.  240;  The  Author  of  "The  Messiah,"  Lindsay,  Sepp,  Norris,  Westcott, 
Farrar,  Aldrich. 


Part    VII.]         DAY   OF  THE   PASCHAL  SUPPER.  461 

except  the  eating  of  the  lamb.'  But  such  a  supper  could  be  only 
eaten  out  of  Jerusalem,  and  upon  the  legal  day,  not  in  the  city,  and 
upon  the  day  previous.  Nor  is  there  any  evidence  that  this  memorial 
passover  was  ever  observed  till  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
when  it  became  impossible  that  the  lamb  could  be  slain  in  the  temple, 
and  the  supper  was  necessarily  limited  to  unleavened  bread  and  bitter 
herbs. 

(i)  That  it  was  a  farewell  supper,  and  not  in  any  true  sense  a 
paschal  supper,  although  the  usual  elements  of  such  supper  were  on  the 
table.  It  is  said  that  the  Mosaic  type  was  fulfilled  in  the  institution 
of  the  Lord's  Supper;  what  took  place  at  the  meal  before  this  institu- 
tion, was  unimportant.  But  against  this  is  the  fact  that  the  Lord 
used  in  the  institution  of  His  supper  not  merely  some  of  the 
materials,  bread  and  wine ;  but  the  forms,  which,  as  well  as  the  direc- 
tions given  by  Him  respecting  its  preparation,  show  that  He  did 
keep  the  true  paschal  supjier. 

We  find,  then,  no  sufficient  grounds  for  the  belief  that  the  Lord 
did  not  observe  the  legal  prescriptions  respecting  the  paschal  supper, 
both  as  to  the  time,  and  the  manner  of  its  observance. 

II.  Are  there  in  the  accounts  of  the  Evangelists  discrepancies  as 
to  the  time  or  manner  of  the  paschal  supper  ? 

1.     As  to  time: 

It  is  admitted  on  all  sides,  and  therefore,  need  not  be  here  consid- 
ered, that  Jesus  died  on  Friday  in  the  afternoon.^  The  eating  of  the 
supper  on  the  evening  previous  was,  therefore,  on  Thursday  evening ; 
His  resurrection  was  on  the  Sunday  following.  The  point  in  ques- 
tion is  not  respecting  the  day  of  the  week,  but  the  day  of  the  month. 
Was  Friday  the  14th  or  15th  Nisan?  It  is  said  that  John  asserts  the 
former,  the  Synoptists  the  latter.  We  give  the  discrepancy  in  tabu- 
lar form : 

St.  John.  Synoptists. 

Sujiper  eaten,  evening  of  Thursday,     Evening  of  Thursday,  14th 

13th  Nisan.  Nisan. 

Jesus  crucified,  Friday,  14th  Nisan.     Friday,  15th  Nisan. 
Was  in  the  grave,   Saturday,  15th     Saturday,  16th  Nisan. 

Nisan. 
Resurrection,    Sunday,   16th  Nisan.     Sunday,  17th  Nisan. 

The  sup2)er  of  the  SynoiAlsts.  We  may  best  begin  our  enquiry  by 
asking:  Do  the  Synoptists  put  the  supper  on  the  evening  following 
the  14th  Nisan?  Their  language  on  its  face  clearly  affirms  this:  *'  Now 


'  So  Grotius,  on  Matt.  xxvi.  11. 

2  See,  however,  Westcott,  Introduction,  317  £E. 


462  THE   LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII 

the  first  day  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  —  ry  di  vpwry  tCov  d'^vfiut 
—  the  disciples  came  to  Jesus,  saying,  Where  wilt  Thou  that  we  pre- 
pare for  Thee  to  eat  the  passover?"  .  .  .  (Matt.  xxvi.  17.)  "And  the 
first  day  of  unleavened  bread  —  koI  rfj  irpcorr)  rifxepa  twv  a^vfiwv  —  when 
they  killed  the  passover,  His  disciples  said  unto  Him "  (Mark  xiv. 
12).  "  Then  came  the  day  of  unleavened  bread  when  the  passover 
must  be  killed," —■^  ^jii^/ia  TtDi/dfi/Atwf— (Luke  xxii.  7.  Compare 
this  with  verse  1 :  "  Now  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  drew  nigh  "). 
That  this  was  the  14th  Nisan  seems  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  for  on 
the  afternoon  of  this  day  the  paschal  lamb  was  slain,  and  all  prepara- 
tions made  for  the  feast  that  began  at  evening  with  the  paschal  sup- 
per. All  the  Evangelists  say:  "  They  made  ready  the  passover  — 
the  paschal  supper  "  —  and  this  must  have  embraced  the  lamb.  As  has 
been  already  remarked,  this  was  not,  strictly  speaking,  the  first  day  of 
the  feast,  for  this  began  at  sunset  with  the  15th,  but,  it  was  in  popu- 
lar language  so  called ;  and  the  circumstance  that  the  lamb  was  yet 
to  be  slain  sufficiently  determines  what  day  was  meant.  (Compare 
Exod.  xii.  18.) 

The  attempts  so  to  interpret  these  statements  as  to  make  them  re- 
fer to  an  anticipatory  supper  on  the  evening  following  the  13th  Nisan, 
are  very  forced  and  unsatisfactory,  since  neither  according  to  the 
law  nor  to  usage  was  the  paschal  lamb  slain  on  that  day. 

It  is  said  by  Godet  (on  John  xix.  41,  42),  that  as  "  the  first  day  of 
unleavened  bread,"  as  used  by  the  Synoptists,  means  the  14th  Nisan, 
and  as  the  day  began  at  sunset,  we  are  either  obliged  to  hold  that 
the  commission  given  to  the  two  apostles  to  prepare  for  the  supper 
was  at  its  beginning,  i.  e.  after  the  sunset  following  the  13th  (so  West- 
cott),  or  that  it  was  earlier  and  on  the  13th  itself,  probably  some 
hours  before  simset.  The  two  disciples  indeed  thought  that  they 
were  to  make  ready  for  the  evening  of  the  next  day,  the  14th  Nisan, 
but  the  Lord  told  them  that  His  time  was  that  very  evening.  Of 
course,  as  Godet  admits,  there  was  no  sacrifice  of  the  lamb  in  the  tem- 
ple, and  without  such  a  sacrifice  the  supper  was  only  a  private  meal. 
But  aside  from  this,  we  cannot,  without  great  violence  to  the  language 
of  the  Synoptists,  make  it  to  refer  to  an  anticipatory  sacrifice  on  the 
evening  of  the  13th  Nisan.  Its  whole  tenor  makes  the  very  strong 
impression  upon  us  that  the  disciples  prepared,  and  that  the  Lord  ate 
the  paschal  lamb  at  the  same  time  when  it  was  prepared  and  eaten 
by  the  people  in  general.  The  indications,  which  a  few  think  they 
find  in  certain  expressions,  are  very  slight  and  unimportant.  Thus  it 
is  said  that  from  the  Lord's  words  (Matt.  xxvi.  18):  "My  time  is  at 
band,  I  will  keep  the  passover  at  thy  house, "  it  is  a  valid  inference 


Part  VII.]      THE  SUPPER  MENTIONED  BY  JOHN.  463 

that  this  supper  was  "out  of  course,"  and  before  the  usual  time. 
(Godet.)  But  clearly  by  "  my  time  "  there  is  no  reference  to  the  hour 
of  the  meal,  but  to  the  time  of  his  suffering.  In  like  way,  His  words 
(Luke  xxii.  15):  "With  desire  I  have  desired  to  eat  this  passover 
with  you  before  I  sutler,"  have  been  understood  as  meaning  that  this 
passover  was  peculiar  in  that  it  was  before  the  usual  time,  or  as  one 
at  which  there  was  no  paschal  lamb.  (Caspari.)  But  the  obvious 
meaning  is,  that  it  had  special  significance  because  it  was  the  last. 
The  truth  is  well  expressed  by  Robinson: '  "  Their  language  is  full, 
explicit,  and  decisive,  to  the  eflfect  that  our  Lord's  last  meal  with  His 
disciples  was  the  regular  and  ordinary  paschal  supper  of  the  Jews, 
introducing  the  festival  of  unleavened  bread  on  the  evening  after 
the  14th  day  of  Nisan." 

Taking  then  as  established,  that  the  Synoptists  make  the  supper 
eaten  by  the  Lord  to  have  been  the  true  paschal  supper,  let  us  con- 
sider in  detail  the  statements  of  John  that  bear  upon  the  point. 
The  first  of  these  we  find  in  xiii.  1,  ff.,  where  mention  is  made  of  a 
supper  where  Jesus  washed  the  disciples'  feet.  "Was  this  the  paschal 
supper  ?  If  so,  when  was  it  eaten  ? 

The  supper  of  John.  Was  this  the  paschal  supper?  This  is  de- 
nied by  not  a  few,  who  think  it  to  have  been  a  supper  before  the 
paschal  supper,  and  one  not  mentioned  at  all  by  the  Synoptists.  The 
grounds  of  this  conclusion  are:  1st,  that  it  is  not  described  by  John 
as  a  paschal  meal ;  2d,  that  the  act  of  feet  washing  was  incongruous 
with  such  a  meal;  3d,  that  comparing  John  xiii.  27  with  Luke  xxii. 
3,  where  it  is  said  that  "  Satan  entered  into  Judas,"  both  refer  to  the 
same  thing,  and  this  supper  must  therefore  have  been  before  the  pas- 
chal supper;  4th,  that  the  interpretations  of  the  Lord's  words  to 
Judas  (verse  29)  show  that  this  supper  was  still  future ;  5th,  that  His 
words  at  the  close  of  the  supper  (xiv.  31)  "  Arise,  let  us  go  hence," 
refer  to  His  going  with  the  disciples  from  the  place  of  the  supper  to 
Jerusalem,  there  to  keep  the  paschal  feast.  If  not  a  paschal  supper 
eaten  at  the  appointed  time,  when  was  it  eaten?  Some  say  on  Tuesday 
evening,  some  on  Wednesday  evening.  The  first  is  advocated  by 
Lightf oot,  and  for  the  purpose  of  comparison  we  give  his  order : 

Saturday  —  Sabbath, —  9th  Nisan,  He  sups  with  Lazarus  at  Beth- 
any ;  Tuesday,  12th  Nisan,  He  sups  with  Simon  at  Bethany.  It  is 
this  supper  which  is  mentioned  by  John  when  the  feet  were  washed, 
and  the  subsequent  events  and  the  Lord's  discourse  at  this  time  are 
contained  in  chapter  xiii.  He  continued  in  Bethany  till  Thursday, 
14th  Nisan,   and  His  words,  chapter  xiv.    were  spoken  at  Bethany 

1  Har.,  246.    See  to  same  effect,  Bleek,  Beitrage,  134;  Edersheim,  ii.  481. 


464  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD,  [Part  VII 

just  before  He  went  into  the  city  to  the  pasclial  supper.  Chapters 
XV.,  xvi.,  and  xvii.  were  spoken  at  the  end  of  the  paschal  supper  on 
Thursday  evening.  Thus  Lightfoot  makes  three  suppers,  of  which 
John  mentions  two  (xii.  2  and  xiii.  3) ;  the  paschal  supper  he  does 
not  speak  of,  and  there  is  consequently  no  discrepancy  with  the 
Synoptists  as  to  its  time. 

Among  those  who  put  this  supper  on  Wednesday,'  we  take  the 
order  of  Wichelhaus  (168). 

On  Tuesday,  the  12th  Nisan,  was  the  supper  at  Bethany  in  the 
house  of  Simon.  On  Wednesday  morning,  Jiidas  made  his  bargain 
with  the  priests,  and  in  the  evening  was  the  supper  of  the  feet  washing 
in  Bethany  or  its  neighborhood.  On  the  next  afternoon,  Thursday, 
the  14th  Nisan,  was  the  paschal  supper.  All  recorded  in  John  after 
this  supper  (xiii.  12  to  xiv.  31)  was  before  He  went  to  Jerusalem,  a 
part  on  Wednesday  evening  and  a  part  on  the  Thursday  forenoon  fol- 
lowing. If  not  the  paschal  supper,  but  one  on  the  Tuesday  or 
Wednesday  evening  preceding,  the  accounts  of  the  Synoptists  and  of 
John  cannot  conflict. 

Upon  the  other  hand,  it  is  said  that  this  supper  was  the  paschal 
supper,  and  so  to  be  identified  with  that  of  the  Synoptists,  upon  the 
following  grounds :  First,  Through  the  designation  of  Judas  by  the 
Lord  as  he  that  should  betray  Him.  (Compare  John  xiii.  21-30  with 
Matt.  xxvi.  21-25,  Mark  xiv.  18-21,  Luke  xxii.  21-23.)  Second, 
Through  the  prophecy  that  Peter  should  thrice  deny  Him,  and  of  the 
crowing  of  the  cock.  (Compare  John  xiii.  38  with  Matt.  xxvi.  34, 
Luke  xxii.  34.)  Third,  Through  the  connection  between  the  Lord's 
words  recorded  in  John,  chapters  xiv.,  xv.,  xvi.,  showing  that  they 
were  all  spoken  at  once.  Fourth,  Through  the  statement  (Luke 
xxii.  24)  that  at  the  paschal  supper  there  was  a  strife  among  them 
who  should  be  accounted  greatest,  which  serves  to  explain  His 
conduct  in  washing  His  disciples'  feet.  (Compare  John  xiii.  13-17.) 
It  is  impossible  in  our  limited  space  to  examine  these  points  in 
detail ;  some  of  them  will  meet  us  later.  But  most  modern  harmonists 
and  commentators  find  the  points  of  similarity  more  marked  than 
tliose  of  difference,  and  so  identify  the  supper  of  John  with  that  of 
the  Synoptists.'  But  a  few  of  them  afhrm  that  a  discrepancy  exists 
as  to  the  time,  and  that  one  of  the  accounts  must  be  in  error.  This 
point  therefore  demands  our  attention. 

Time  of  the  supper  in  John.     Assuming  that  John  and  the  Synopt- 


1  So  Bengel,  Krafift,  Wichelhaus,   Rope.     See  Bynaeiis,  Be  Mwte  Jem  ChiMU 
i.  586,  for  an  elaborate  defense  of  this  view. 

2  Tholuck,  Greswell,  Alford,  Meyer,  Tischendorf,  Robiuson,  Friedlieh,  Luthardt 
Edereheim,  Gardiner,  and  others. 


Part  VII.]  TIME   OF   THE    SUPPER  IN   JOHN.  465 

ists  refer  to  the  same  supper,  and  having  already  seen  that  the  latter 
put  it  on  the  evening  following  the  14th  Nisan,  we  ask  what  note  of 
time  does  John  give  vis  ?  He  says  only  that  it  was  "before  the  feast 
of  the  passover."  But  to  what  does  this  mark  of  time  refer?  Our 
answer  must  depend  upon  the  relation  in  which  verse  1  stands  to  the 
verses  following.  That  it  forms  a  sentence  complete  in  itself,  and 
grammatically  independent  upon  what  follows,  is  generally  admitted.' 
If  so,  the  words,  "before  the  feast  of  the  passover,"  must  qualify 
either  the  main  or  one  of  the  subordinate  propositions.  The  main 
proposition  is  that  ' '  Jesus  loved  his  own  to  the  end,  to  the  end  of  His 
life  " ;  or,  as  some  render  it,  "  perfectly,"  or  to  "  the  uttermost."  But 
clearly  the  Evangelist  did  not  mean  to  say  merely  that  Jesus  before  the- 
feast  of  the  passover  loved  His  own  to  the  end  of  His  life,  or  that  He 
then  loved  them  perfectly.  Although  the  sentence  may  be  grammati- 
cally complete,  yet  all  feel  that  the  statement  is  incomplete.  Love  being 
a  permanent  feeling  in  His  heart,  we  need  not  be  told  that  He  loved 
His  disciples  to  the  end;  much  less  can  we  connect  it  with  the  note 
of  time,  "before  the  passover."  Interpreters,  therefore,  understand 
love  here  not  of  the  feeling  in  itself,  but  as  manifested  in  some  act  or 
event  of  which  a  definite  time  may  be  j^redicated  ;  and  that  this  act  was 
in  the  mind  of  the  Evangelist.  Accordingly,  Meyer  speaks  of  the  mani- 
festation of  this  love :  ' '  He  loved,  and  gave  to  His  own  the  closing 
proof  of  love."  In  like  manner  Godet:  "He  perfectly  testified  to 
them  all  His  love."  But  there  is  in  this  first  verse  no  mention  of  any 
such  act;  in  the  following  verse  there  is  mention  of  a  supj^er,  and  of 
His  act  in  the  washing  of  the  apostles'  feet. 

Let  us,  however,  admit  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  Evangelist, 
and  read :  ' '  Before  the  feast  of  the  passover,  Jesus  gave  the  last  proof 
of  His  love,"  or  "perfectly  testified  His  love,"  "by  washing  the 
disciples'  feet  at  a  supper."  It  is  said  that  this  supper,  thus  described 
as  being  before  the  feast  of  the  j^assover,  cannot  have  been  the  paschal 
supper,  but  must  have  been  at  least  one  day  earlier. 

But  there  are  others  who  take  the  same  view  of  the  relation  of  the 
note  of  time,  and  yet  reach  an  opposite  conclusion.  They  take  ' '  before 
the  feast  of  the  passover  "  as  an  indefinite  expression  which  may  denote 
a  longer  or  shorter  interval,  the  Greek  preposition  —  7rp6  —  being  in  this 
respect  like  the  preposition  "before."  As  we  use  this  of  events  which 
may  immediately  follow,  in  current  expressions  like  these  —  before 
dinner,  before  sunset  —  when  a  very  few  moments  may  intervene;  so 
"before    the    passover"    may   mean    that   the   act   spoken   of  took 


1  Meyer,  Lange,  Robinson,  Alford,  Tischendorf,  W.  and  H.,  E.  V.;  but  contra, 
Bleek,  Beitiage,  126,  DeWette,  in  his  Translation,  Ebrard. 

20* 


466  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  VIL 

place  at  a  very  brief  interval  before  the  pascliul  supper.  (See  Luke 
xi.  37;  Baumlein,  in  loco.)  In  this  way  it  is  understood  by  Luthardt, 
who  contrasts  (xii.  1)  ' '  Six  days  before  the  passover "  —  a  definite 
interval — with  the  present,  "now  before  the  feast"  —  an  indefinite 
interval  —  and  explains  the  last  as  meaning,  ' '  now  that  the  feast 
had  come,"  or  was  about  to  begin.  (So  Stier:  "was  immediately 
before.")  In  this  view  of  the  matter  the  supper  of  the  feet-washing 
was  the  paschal  supper,  the  washing  of  the  feet  being  introductory. 

But  to  this  there  is  the  objection  that  the  feet- washing  was  "  dur- 
ing supper" —  the  meal  being  actually  in  progress, — and  therefore 
cannot  be  fairly  said  to  have  been  before  the  feast  (Wies.,  Beitrage, 
233). 

To  avoid  this  objection,  it  may  be  said  that  John,  in  speaking  of 
the  Feast  of  the  Passover,  followed  the  usual  Jewish  usage  in  counting 
the  first  day  of  the  feast,  or  the  15th  Nisan,  not  from  tlie  sunset  of  the 
14th,  but  from  the  following  morning  (Levit.  xxiii.  56).  The  feast 
beginning  with  the  early  daybreak  of  the  15th,  the  supper  of  the 
feet-washing  on  the  evening  before  was  in  fact  before  the  feast,  and 
so  might  have  been  the  paschal  supper.  (See  Langen,  109;  McClel., 
483.) 

To  this  it  may  be  replied  that  it  implies  a  distinction  between 
sacred  and  secular  time  in  the  computation  of  the  days,  of  which 
there  is  no  sufficient  proof. 

We  have  assumed  hitherto  that  the  words  "before  the  pass- 
over"  qualify  the  main  proposition,  "Jesus  loved  His  own  to  the 
end  ";  but  they  may  qualify  one  of  the  two  subordinate  propositions 
or  particij^ial  clauses — "Knowing  that  His  hour  was  come  that  He 
should  depart  out  of  this  world  unto  the  Father,"  and  "  Having  loved 
His  own  which  were  in  the  world."  If  they  qualify  the  first,  the 
rendering  is,  "Jesus,  knowing  before  the  feast  of  the  j^assover  that 
His  hour  was  come,"  etc. ;  if  the  second,  the  rendering  is,  "  Jesus  hav- 
ing loved  His  own  before  the  feast  of  the  passover  "  etc.  Of  these  two 
qualifications  the  first  is  clearly  to  be  preferred,  the  connection  being 
closer  and  more  obvious.  The  meaning  of  the  verse  is  thus  given  by 
Norton  in  his  translation :  ' '  But  Jesus,  before  the  feast  of  the 
passover,  knew  that  the  hour  had  come  for  him  to  pass  from  the 
world  to  the  Father,  and  having  loved  His  own  who  were  to  remain 
in  this  world.  He  loved  them  to  the  last."  In  a  note  he  says:  "  It 
is  a  very  forced  interpretation  to  regard  the  Avords,  '  before  the  feast 
of  the  passover,'  as  intended  to  fix  the  date  of  what  follows." 

That  either  of  the  participial  clauses  should  be  qualified  by  the 
note  of  time  is  said  by  Westcott  to  be  "  impossible. "  But  the  grounds 
of  this  impossibility  are  not  apparent.     Supposing  the  Evangelist  to 


Part  VIL]      THE  TIME   OF  THE   PASCHAL  SUPPER,  467 

have  had  ia  his  mind  the  paschal  supper,  now  near  at  hand,  his  state- 
ment is  clear  and  consistent;  and  we  find  a  sufficient  reason  for  the 
note  of  time.  The  Lord's  knowledge  of  the  future  determined  Hia 
action.  Knowing  before  the  feast  that  He  should  die  at  the  feast,  He 
would,  before  He  left  the  world,  show  forth  His  love  to  His  own; 
and  the  paschal  supper  gave  Him  the  last  opi)ortunity  to  do  this,  for 
immediately  after  this  they  were  all  scattered.  It  is  as  if  a  man, 
knowing  that  a  session  of  a  court  where  he  is  to  be  tried  for  hia 
life  is  near,  should  assemble  his  friends  and  make  an  address  to 
them.  The  exact  hour  when  the  Lord  came  to  this  knowledge  is 
unimportant,  but  the  foreknowledge  is  an  essential  condition  of  His 
action.  This  interpretation  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  -whole 
narrative.  Before  Jesus  left  Galilee  He  announced  His  departure  as 
at  hand  (Matt.  xvii.  22),  and  again  after  He  left  Ephraim  (xx.  17). 
Two  days  before  the  feast  He  repeated  that  at  the  Passover  He  should 
be  betrayed  (Matt.  xxvi.  2).  And  now  the  feast  had  come,  and  with 
it  "His  hour."  He,  knowing  all  tliis,  gives  at  this  introductory 
supper  of  the  feast  a  new  and  last  proof  of  the  love  with  which  He 
had  loved  them.  With  the  full  knowledge  that  the  hour  of  His 
arrest  and  death  is  come,  and  that  He  no  more  should  thus  meet 
His  disciples,  He  shows  them  in  the  most  expressive  way  how  great 
and  unchangeable  His  affection  for  them.  In  this  way  the  abrujit 
and  incidental  mention  of  the  supper  (verse  2)  is  readily  explained ; 
and  that  it  was  the  jDaschal  supper  follows  from  the  whole  connection 
of  the  thought. 

If,  however,  we  connect  the  clause,  "before  the  feast  of  the  pass- 
over,"  with  "  having  loved,"  the  meaning  is,  Jesus,  that  having  loved 
His  own  down  to  this  time,  or  to  the  passover  which  is  now  come, 
and  knowing  that  the  hour  of  His  death  is  at  hand,  continues  to 
love  them,  even  to  the  end,  and  now  gives  a  fresh  proof  of  it  at  the 
paschal  supper.  Here,  as  before,  it  is  implied  that  this  supper  at 
the  beginning  of  the  feast  is  the  last  opportunity  He  would  have 
of  manifesting  His  love.  In  this  construction  the  antithesis  be- 
tween "before  the  feast"  and  "to  the  end,"  is  most  clearly 
brought  out.  The  love  which  He  had  felt  to  His  own  before  the 
feast  continued  ardent  to  the  end,  and  was  shown  in  the  act  of  wash- 
ing their  feet.  Still,  the  other  participial  connection  is  to  be  j^re- 
f  erred . ' 

We  conclude,  then,  that  from  the  note  of  time  "before  the  feast 
of  the  passover,"  nothing  definite  in  regard  to  the  time  of  the  sup- 
per can  be  determined.     Supposing  all  between  verses  1  and  4  to  be 

1  See  Wieseler,  Syn.,  379;  Beitrage,  231;  Tholuck,  in  loco;  Rob.,  Har.,  249. 


468  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

striken  out,  and  the  statement  to  read:  "Now  before  the  feast  of 
the  passover  ....  He  riseth  from  supper,  and  laid  aside  His 
garments,"  it  would  still  remain  probable  that  the  paschal  supjier  is 
meant.  The  presumption  is  very  strong  that  this  meal,  thus  incident- 
ally mentioned,  must  have  been  that  so  prominently  and  inseparably 
associated  with  the  feast. 

An  additional  proof  that  this  was  not  the  paschal  supper,  but  one 
a  day  earlier,  is  found  by  many  '  in  the  fact  mentioned  (Johnxiii.  29), 
that  none  of  the  disciples  knew  what  the  Lord  had  said  to  Judas  at 
the  table,  but  some  of  them  supposed  He  had  told  him  to  buy  what 
was  necessary  for  the  feast,  or  to  give  something  to  the  poor.  It  is 
said,  if  the  disciples  w^ere  now  eating  the  feast  no  one  could  have 
thought  that  Judas  went  out  for  this  purpose.  Hence  it  follows  that 
this  supper  was  previous  to  the  beginning  of  the  feast,  and  that  all 
the  preparations  were  yet  to  l)e  made.  But  this  inference  is  not  well 
grounded ;  it  depends  upon  the  determination  of  the  time  in  verse  first. 
The  feast,  for  the  needs  of  which  Judas  was  to  buy,  is  not  to  be 
limited  to  the  paschal  sujiper,  for  it  continued  seven  days,  and  em- 
braced various  sacrifices  and  ofi'erings  other  than  the  paschal  lamb. 
It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  a  master  of  a  family,  speaking  at  this 
first  meal,  should  thus  refer  to  the  jirovision  to  be  made  for  the 
further  keeping  of  the  feast.  Judas,  as  the  treasurer  of  the  body  of 
apostles,  was  in  this  case  the  person  to  make  such  provision.  And 
the  fact,  that  he  went  out  immediately  after  the  Lord  had  spoken  to 
him,  would  naturally  suggest  to  others  that  something  necessary  to 
the  feast  was  to  be  at  once  procured ;  if  it  were  to  begin  twenty-four 
hours  later,  there  would  be  no  need  of  haste.  (The  objection  that 
nothing  could  be  bought  on  a  feast  day,  will  be  later  examined.) 

A  careful  examination  of  this  passage  seems  rather  to  prove  that 
this  was  the  paschal  supper  than  to  disj^rove  it.  The  disciples  heard 
the  Lord  say  to  Judas,  "That  thou  doest  do  quickly."  He  immedi- 
ately arises  and  goes  out,  and  "  it  was  night."  Supposing  this  to  have 
been  a  supper  on  the  night  of  the  13th  Nisan,  and  a  full  day  before 
the  paschal  supper,  would  they  connect  his  departure  with  any  prep- 
arations for  the  feast?  The  next  day  would  give  him  abundant  time 
to  buy  all  that  was  necessary.  Why  hasten  out  at  that  hour  of  the 
night  ?  But  if  we  suppose  that  this  was  the  paschal  supper,  and  that 
the  next  day,  the  15th,  was  the  first  day  of  the  feast,' we  can  readily 
explain  their  conjectures  as  to  the  cause  of  Judas's  sudden  departure. 
What  he  was  to  do  must  be  done  without  delay.  (So  Stier,  Luthardt, 
and  others.) 


1  Meyer,  Bleek,  Alford,  Godet,  who  does  not,  however,  attach  much  iuiportauce 
to  it. 


Part  VII.]      THE   TIME   OP   THE   PASCHAL  SUPPER.  469 

The  next  passage  iu  John,  and  that  most  relied  ou  to  prove  that 
the  Lord  could  not  have  eaten  the  paschal  supper  at  the  legal  time,  is 
found  in  xviii.  28:  "  Then  led  they  Jesus  from  Caiaphas  unto  the  hall 
of  judgment,  and  it  was  early;  and  they  themselves  went  not  into  the 
judgment  hall  lest  they  should  be  defiled,  but  that  they  might  eat  the 
passover."  This,  it  is  said,  plainly  proves  that  the  Jews  had  not  yet 
eaten  the  passover,  and  that  the  supper  which  Jesus  had  eaten  on  the 
previous  evening  could  not  have  been  the  paschal  supper  as  the  Syn- 
optists  seem  to  state.' 

Two  solutions  of  this  difficulty  are  given:  First,  that  those  who 
would  not  go  into  the  judgment  hall,  were  those  Scribes  and  Phari- 
sees who  had  been  engaged  during  the  night,  while  the  other  Jews 
were  keeping  the  feast,  iu  directing  the  proceedings  against  Jesus, 
and  thus  had  had  no  time  to  partake  of  the  paschal  supper.  Second, 
that  John  uses  the  expression,  "eat  the  passover,"  in  its  larger 
meaning,  not  referring  to  the  paschal  lamb,  but  to  the  offerings  eaten 
on  the  second  day  of  the  feast.  The  former  of  these  solutions  has 
never  found  many  defenders,  though  not  in  itself  impossible.  So 
great  was  the  hate  against  Jesus,  and  so  little  scrupulous  were  His 
enemies,  that  w^e  cannot  doubt,  that  to  compass  His  death  they  would 
have  postponed  for  a  time  the  paschal  supper,  or  even  have  neglected 
it  altogether.  There  are,  however,  other  obvious  difficulties,  which 
this  explanation  does  not  fully  meet.  (This  view  is  best  stated  by 
Fairbairn,  "  Hermeneutical  Miinual,"  383  ff.) 

We  must  consider  the  second  of  these  solutions.  It  is  admitted, 
that  as  the  Syuoptists  use  the  phrase  "to  eat  the  passover"  — 
(t>a.-yeiv  rb -n-dcTxo;  —  it  always  means  to  eat  the  paschal  supper  (Matt. 
xxvi.  17 ;  Mark  xiv.  12  and  14 ;  Luke  xxii.  11  and  15).  If  John  uses  it 
in  the  same  sense,  then  the  paschal  supper  was  eaten  by  the  Jews  on 
the  evening  of  the  day  when  Jesus  was  crucified,  and  He  must  have 
anticipated  it.  But  the  usage  of  the  Synoptists  does  not  decide  the 
usage  of  John.  We  must  determine  its  meaning  from  the  way  in 
which  he  uses  the  phrase  elsewhere,  and  from  the  general  character  of 
his  writings.  It  has  already  been  shown,  that  out  of  the  nine  times 
in  which  he  uses  the  word  Trdo-xa,  —  passover  —  in  six  it  is  applied  to 
the  feast  generally,  and  not  to  the  paschal  supper  only.  The  mean- 
ing in  the  other  three  passages  is  in  dispute.  Only  in  the  passage 
before  us  does  the  phrase  "eat  the  passover "  occur.  The  simple 
point  is,  does  John  here  use  it  in  its  wider  or  narrower  meaning? 

Some  considerations,  drawn  from  the  character  of  John's  Gospel, 
as  influenced  by  the  period  of  time  at  which  he  wrote,  will  serve  to 

1  Meyer,  Bleek,  Browne,  Alford,  Codet,  Schurer. 


470  THE   LIFE   OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

show  how  this  marked  distinction  in  the  use  of  terms  between  him 
and  the  Synoptists  may  be  explained.  John  wrote  toward  the  close 
of  the  century  '  and  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  To  him  the 
Jews  were  no  more  the  holy  people  of  God.  Rejecting  Jesus,  and 
afterwards  His  apostles,  they  had  themselves  been  rejected.  Every- 
where he  speaks  of  them  distinctly  as  "the  Jews,"  formerly  the 
Church  of  God,  but  now  cut  off,  and  as  a  body  standing  in  a  hostile 
attitude  to  Christ  and  to  that  new,  universal  Church,  composed  both 
of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  of  which  He  was  tlie  Head.^  Jewish  institu- 
tions had  in  his  eyes  been  emptied  of  their  significance  and  value, 
since  Christ,  in  whom  all  the  law  was  fulfilled,  had  come.  Hence, 
he  speaks  of  them  commonly  as  the  institutions  of  a  people  between 
whom  and  himself  was  a  broad  line  of  distinction.  Their  purifica- 
tion is  spoken  of  as  that  "  of  the  Jews  " ;  the  passover,  as  "  a  feast  of 
the  Jews";  the  preparation,  as  "preparation  of  the  Jews";  Nico- 
demus,  as  "a  ruler  of  the  Jews."  The  Synoptists,  on  the  otlior 
hand,  writing  before  the  total  rejection  of  Judaism,  and  while  it  still 
stood  side  by  side  with  Christianity  as  of  divine  authority  and  sanc- 
tity, show  by  their  mode  of  allusion  that  no  such  line  of  distinction 
then  existed.  To  them  the  Jews  are  not  as  aliens,  but  still  the  chosen 
people  of  God. 

Placing  ourselves  in  the  position  of  John,  and  remembering  the 
position  of  those  for  whom  he  wrote,  how  few  of  them  had  any  real 
knowledge  of  Jewish  laws  and  traditions;  we  shall  readily  understand 
why  he  speaks  in  such  general  and  indefinite  terms  of  Jewish  rites  as 
of  things  now  superseded.  Since  Jesus,  the  true  Paschal  Lamb,  had 
been  slain,  the  true  paschal  supper  was  kept  only  in  the  Christian 
Church.  To  Christians,  he  could  say  with  Paul  (1  Cor.  v.  7,  8), 
"  Christ,  our  Passover,  is  sacrificed  for  us,  therefore  let  us  keep  the 
feast."  The  Jews  in  their  passover  had  only  the  shell  or  shadow; 
the  Church  had  the  kernel  or  substance.  Hence,  it  is  not  to  be  ex- 
pected that  he  would  refer  to  any  rites  of  the  Jews  at  this  feast  with 
the  care  that  marks  the  Synoptists.  He  does  not  distinguish,  as  do 
they,  its  several  component  parts,  but  speaks  of  it  only  in  general 
terms  as  one  of  the  Jewish  feasts.  There  is  not,  in  the  otlier  places 
in  which  he  mentions  the  passover,  any  clear  proof  that  he  means  to 
distinguish  the  paschal  supper  from  the  solemnities  of  the  following 
days.  Why,  then,  in  the  passage  before  us,  are  we  forced  to  believe 
that  the  passover  which  the  Jews  were  about  to  eat  on  the  day  of  the 
crucifixion,  was  the  paschal  supjjer,  and  that  only?     Why  may  he  not 


•  Meyer,  about 80  A.  D. 

2  See  Meyer  on  John  i.  19;  Bleek,  247. 


I'art  VIL]      PASCHAL  LAMB  AND   PEACE   OFFERINGS.       471 

mean  the  subsequent  sacrifices?  Standing  to  the  Jews  in  a  position 
so  unlike  that  of  the  Synoptists,  it  seems  most  arbitrary  to  assert  that 
he  must  use  language  with  precisely  the  same  strictness,  and  that 
"  to  eat  the  passover  "  must  mean  to  eat  the  paschal  lamb. 

As  has  been  said,  upon  the  first  day  of  the  feast  or  the  15th  of  Nisan 
thank  ofi'erings  of  the  flock  and  herd  were  slain  and  eaten.  There  is 
certainly  no  intrinsic  reason  why  John  may  not  have  meant  these. 
But  it  is  said  in  reply,'  that  if  the  phrase  "  to  eat  the  passover  "  may 
be  used  of  the  other  offerings  inclusive  of  the  jjaschal  lamb,  it  can- 
not be  exclusive  of  it.  But  this  is  by  no  means  obvious.  Passover, 
with  John,  is  a  term  denoting  the  whole  festival;  and  why,  if  the 
paschal  supper  was  past,  might  he  not  employ  it  to  designate  the  re- 
maining feasts?  To  afiirm  that  he  could  not  is  mere  affirmation. 
Norton,"  referring  to  the  oft-repeated  remark  that  the  term  passover 
is  never  used  "absolutely  "  to  denote  the  thank  offerings  considered 
apart  from  the  paschal  supper,  observes:  ''This  remark  has  been 
repeatedly  praised  for  its  acuteness  by  Kuinoel  and  Strauss.  But,  in 
fact,  it  only  implies  a  forgetfulness  of  a  very  common  metonymy  by 
which  the  name  of  a  whole  is  given  to  a  part.  If,  when  the  paschal 
festival  were  half  over,  it  had  been  said  that  certain  Jews  desired  to 
avoid  pollution  that  they  might  keep  the  passover,  every  one  per- 
ceives that  the  expression  would  be  unobjectionable,  though  no  one 
would  think  of  applying  the  name  passover  '  absolutely '  to  the  last 
three  or  four  days  of  the  festival."  Edersheim  (ii.  568,  note  1)  ob- 
serves: "  No  competent  Jewish  archaeologist  would  care  to  deny  that 
'Pesach  '  [Trctcrxa]  niay  refer  to  the  Chagigah." 

The  exact  nature  of  the  defilement  to  which  the  Jews  would  have 
been  exposed  by  entering  the  judgment  hall,  does  not  appear;  but 
that  they  were  at  this  time  very  strict  in  regard  to  entering  the 
dwellings  of  the  uncircumcised  and  eating  with  them,  is  plain 
from  the  accounts  of  Peter  (Acts  x.  28  and  xi.  3.  See  Lightfoot  on 
Matt,  xxiii.  17).  In  the  law,  defilements  are  mentioned  which  were 
only  for  a  day  and  which  could  be  cleansed  by  ablution  (Lev.  xv.  5 
-11  and  xxii.  5-7).  It  is  supposed  by  some  that  contact  with  the 
heathen  was  of  this  class,  and  that,  therefore,  if  the  day  of  the  cruci- 
fixion had  been  the  14th  Nisan,  the  Jews  could  still  have  cleansed 
themselves  by  evening   and   been  ready  to   eat  the  paschal    supper. 

But  it  is  said  by  Schiirer,  Festschrift,  24,  that  this  defilement 
continued  for  seven  days,  and  that  it  was  therefore  imijossible  for  the 
Jews  thus  defiled  to  have  eaten  the  paschal  supper.      On  the  other 


1  Meyer  and  others,  after  Mosheim,  Delitzsch  in  Biehm,  1143;  Schiirer. 

2  Notes,  ii.  466. 


472  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  V IL 

hand  it  is  affirmed  by  Bynaeus,  Edersheim,  and  many,  that  entering  a 
heathen  house  made  one  ceremonially  unclean  only  for  the  day,  or 
till  the  evening.  In  this  case,  if  the  paschal  supper  had  not  been 
eaten  by  the  Jews,  but  was  still  to  be  eaten,  they  would  not  have 
been  prevented  from  eating  it,  since,  although  the  lamb  was  killed 
in  the  afternoon,  the  supper  was  not  served  till  after  the  sunset,  or  in 
the  beginning  of  the  next  day.  The  Sanhedrists  could  not,  therefore, 
on  this  ground  have  refused  to  enter  the  judgment  hall  on  the  morn- 
ing of  the  14th.  But  if  it  was  the  morning  of  the  15th,  during  which 
day  the  thank  offerings  were  sacrificed  and  eaten,  they  could  not  have 
partaken  of  them.  Hence,  it  is  inferred  that  the  thank  offerings, 
rather  than  the  paschal  supper,  were  meant,  and  that  this  day  was  the 
15th  rather  than  the  14th.'  Much  stress,  however,  in  the  present 
state  of  our  knowledge  of  Jewish  customs,  cannot  be  laid  upon  this 
argument.^ 

This  passage,  then,  affords  no  sufficient  data  for  the  final  determi- 
nation of  the  question  as  to  the  time  of  the  paschal  supper.  If  any 
think  that  John  could  not  have  used  the  phrase  ' '  to  eat  the  pass- 
over  "  in  any  other  sense  than  the  Synoptists  used  it,  they  must 
admit  a  chronological  difference  between  him  and  them  which  we 
find  no  satisfactory  way  to  reconcile.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
find  it  not  only  possible,  but  also  probable,  that  he  should  thus  speak 
of  the  festival  apart  from  the  supj^er,  the  supposed  difference  dis- 
appears. 

The  next  important  passage  we  find  in  xix.  14:  "And  it  was  the 
preparation  of  the  passover,  and  about  the  sixth  hour;  and  he  saith 
unto  the  Jews,  Behold  your  King."  A  different  punctuation  of  this 
passage  has  been  proposed,  making  it  to  read  thus:  "And  it  was  the 
preparation.  The  hour  of  the  passover  was  about  the  sixth. "  ^ 
Though  some  plausible  reasons  may  be  given  for  this  change,  yet  it 
involves  considerable  difficulties.  We  shall  follow  the  generally 
received  punctuation. 

Our  first  inquiry  relates  to  the  meaning  of  the  term  "preparation  " 
—  TrapaaKevfj.  It  occurs  in  the  Gospel  five  times  besides  the  text : 
Matt,  xxvii.  62;  Mark  xv.  43;  Luke  xxiii.  54;  John  xix.  31;  John 
xix.  42.  In  all  these  cases  there  is  little  doubt  as  to  its  meaning.  It 
was,  as  Mark  explains  it,  "the  day  before  the  Sabbath"  —  irpoffd^- 
^arov — or  the  day  in  which  prei^aration  was  made  for  the  Sabbath. 
Such  preparation,  though  not  expressly  prescribed  in  the  law,  was 


1  So  Bynaeus,  iii.  13;  Eders.,  ii.  567;  Langen,  KeU,  and  many. 

2  See  Friedlieb,  Arch.,  lOi;  Bleek,  11.3;  Nebe,  i.  39r  £E. 

*  So  Ilofniann,  followed  by  Lichtenstein,  359.    See  contra,  Luthardt  in  loco. 


Part  VII.]  THE  PREPARATION  DAY.  473 

yet  made  necessary  by  the  strictness  of  the  commands  respecting  the 
Sabbath,  which  forbade  all  labor  even  to  prepare  food  on  that  day. 
(Compare  Exod.  xvi.  5.)  Hence,  it  became  the  habit  of  the  Jews  to 
observe  the  afternoon  before  from  three  o'clock,  as  a  time  of  getting 
ready  for  the  Sabbath  which  began  at  sunset.'  As  they  came  more 
and  more  under  bondage  to  that  legal  spirit  which  so  ciiaracterized 
the  Pharisees,  and  the  rigor  of  the  original  Sabbath  laws  was  aug- 
mented by  burdensome  additions,  of  which  many  examples  are  to  be 
found  in  the  Evangelists  and  in  Josephus,  this  period  of  preparation 
became  more  and  more  important.  Thus,  by  degrees,  Friday,  or  the 
irpoad^^arov,  became  known  as  the  irapaaKevq,  or  Preparation ;  as  Sat- 
urday, the  day  of  rest,  was  known  as  the  Sabbath,  all  other  days  be- 
ing distinguished  only  as  the  first,  second,  third,  etc.  As  the  prep- 
aration was  made  in  the  afternoon  preceding,  or  during  that  part  of 
it  which  was  known  as  ' '  the  evening,"  this  term  was  generally 
applied  to  it  in  Hebrew  and  Chaldee :  as  by  the  Germans  the  day 
before  the  Sunday  is  called  Sonnabend  or  Sun-evening.  Thus  the 
sixth  day  of  the  week  received  its  current  name  from  its  peculiar  rela- 
tions to  the  Sabbath ;  and  irapaa-Kev-q  became  equivalent  to  Friday. 
As  remarked  by  Westcott :  ' '  Being  the  preparation  for  the  weekly 
Sabbath,  it  was  natural  that  it  should  become  at  last  the  proper 
name  of  the  day." 

From  this  origin  of  the  term,  and  from  the  fact  that  it  was  gen- 
erally used  to  designate  the  sixth  day  of  the  week,  and  that  it  is  so 
used  both  by  the  Synoptists  and  by  John,  we  infer  that,  in  the  pas- 
sage before  us  it  means  the  preparation  day  before  the  Sabbath,  or 
Friday.  As  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  continued  seven  days, 
there  would  be  in  it  one  Sabbath,  and  so  one  preparation  day, 
and  to  speak  of  the  paraskeue  of  the  passover  week  would  suflBciently 
define  it.  ■ 

In  its  larger  meaning  of  "preparation,"  the  term  might  be  used  in 
connection  with  any  of  the  feasts;  and  this  leads  us  to  ask  as  to  prepa- 
ration days  other  than  that  for  the  week-Sabbath.  That  some  prep- 
aration was  necessary  for  the  proper  observance  of  every  feast,  even  of 
those  observed  only  for  a  day  —  as  the  new  moon  and  pentecost  —  may 
be  admitted,  and  probably  some  hours  on  the  afternoon  before  may 
have  been  given  to  it ;  and  especially  before  the  feast  Sabbaths,  such 
as  the  first  and  last  days  of  passover  and  of  tabernacles.  But  there 
seems  no  good  reason  why  in  these  cases  the  day  preceding  should  be 
known  as  the  day  of  preparation.  The  manner  of  celebrating  the 
passover,  indeed,  made  it  necessary  that  the  day  before  it  began  should 


1  Josephus,  Antiq.,  xvi.  G.  2. 


474  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part   Vll, 

be  spent  in  part  in  removing  the  leaven,  and  in  killing  the  lamb;  and 
in  this  sense  the  14th  Nisan  was  the  preparation  day  for  the  15th, 
and  might  be  called  the  preparation  day  of  the  passover.  But  we 
find  no  proof  that  there  were  any  such  days  of  preparation  for  the 
feasts  as  for  the  weekly  Sabbaths.  The  chief  reason  why  such 
preparation  was  needed  for  the  latter,  was  that  on  that  day  no 
food  could  be  prepared ;  every  kind  of  labor  ceased  as  a  mark  of 
its  greater  dignity  and  sanctity.  But  preparation  of  food,  and 
labor  other  than  "servile,"  were  permitted  on  the  feast  Sabbaths. 
Some  have  laid  stress  on  the  expression  "passover  eve,"  as  showing 
that  there  was  on  the  afternoon  of  the  14th  Nisan  a  period  thus  des- 
ignated and  set  apart ;  but  it  is  said  by  Robinson  (Har.)  that  the  expres- 
sion did  not  arise  "  till  after  the  destruction  of  the  temple  and  the 
consequent  cessation  of  the  regular  and  legal  paschal  meal,  when,  of 
course,  the  seven  days  of  unleavened  bread  became  the  main  festival." 
To  such  a  passover  eve  the  term  "preparation  day  of  the  passover" 
could  not  apply ;  and  as  this  feast  came  but  once  a  year,  there  was  no 
need  that  any  special  name  should  be  given  to  the  day  preceding  it. 

Thus  we  seem  to  reach  the  result  that  the  term  irapaa-Kev-^  —  prepa- 
ration —  must  mean  the  day  before  the  Sabbath,  or  irpoffd^parov,  unless 
the  context  forbids  it.  It  is  so  used  by  the  Synoptists  in  all  the  places 
where  it  occurs.  Matt,  xxvii.  62:  "The  next  day,  that  followed  the 
day  of  the  preparation  ";  (R.  V.,  "On  the  morrow  which  is  the  day 
after  the  preparation  ") ;  Mark  xv.  42:  "  Because  it  was  the  prepara- 
tion, that  is,  the  day  before  the  Sabbath";  Luke  xxiii.  54:  "  And  that 
day  was  the  preparation,  and  the  Sabbath  drew  on  "  (R.  V. :  "the  day 
of  the  preparation  ").  In  all  these  cases  the  obvious  meaning  is,  that 
the  preparation  was  that  for  the  Sabbath,  and  the  day  on  which  it  was 
made  was  Friday.  In  the  three  cases  in  which  it  occurs  in  John,  of 
two  —  xix.  31  and  43  —  the  same  may  be  said ;  but  it  is  claimed  that 
in  the  third,  the  passage  before  us,  the  day  of  the  preparation  is 
expressly  defined  by  the  addition  "  of  the  passover,"  and  cannot, 
therefore,  be  the  day  of  preparation  for  the  weekly  Sabbath,  but 
must  denote  a  day  of  preparation  for  tlie  feast,  and  this  day  must 
have  been  the  14th  Nisan,  as  the  first  day  of  the  feast  was  the  15th. 
(So  Meyer,  Alford,  Winer,  Bleek.)  It  is  said  by  Godet:  "Every 
Greek  reader  would  necessarily  think  of  the  14th  Nisan  as  the  day 
on  which  the  passover  supper  was  prepared."  But  if  it  had  become 
a  technical  term,  a  designation  of  Friday,  and  is  so  used  by  the  Syn- 
optists, and  affirmed  by  them  to  have  been  the  day  of  the  crucifixion, 
it  is  very  questionable  whether  John  would  here  have  used  it  in  a 
different  sense.     It  is  remarked  by  Norton :  "It  would  be  very  extra- 


Part  VII.]        WHAT   SABBATH  A  HIGH  DAY  ?  475 

ordinary  if,  in  speaking  of  the  same  daj,  Friday,  he  had  happened  to 
use  the  proper  name  of  that  day  in  a  sense  different  from  its  common 
one,  and  from  that  in  which  it  is  used  by  the  other  Evangelists,  and 
especially  in  a  sense  of  which  no  other  example  has  been  adduced." 

Some  light  may  be  gained  by  asking  what  was  the  object  of  the 
Evangelist  in  mentioning  that  it  was  "  the  preparation  of  the  pass- 
over  "  when  Jesus  was  brought  before  Pilate.  Was  it  chronological 
li  aply?  This  is  possible,  bat  he  seems  to  have  had  a  higher  purpose. 
It  was  the  time  when  the  Jews  should  have  been  engaged  in  making 
themselves  ready  for  the  holiest  services  of  God  in  His  temple;  but 
their  preparation  consisted  in  putting  His  Son  to  the  shameful  death 
of  the  cross.  The  incongruity  of  their  labors  with  the  character  of 
the  day  is  thus  brought  into  the  clearest  contrast. ' 

The  phrase  "preparation  of  the  passover,"  as  used  by  John,  does 
not  then,  we  conclude,  compel  us  to  regard  the  day  of  the  crucifixion 
as  the  day  before  the  passover.  It  may  be  as  Norton  translates,  "  the 
preparation  day  of  the  paschal  week  " —  the  day  before  the  Sabbath, 

In  still  another  passage  (John  xix.  31)  we  read  "The  Jews,  there- 
fore, because  it  was  the  preparation,  that  the  bodies  should  not  re- 
main upon  the  cross  on  the  Sabbath  day  (for  that  Sabbath  day  was  a 
high  day  —  /xrydXT/),  besought  Pilate,"  etc.  The  ground  upon  which 
this  Sabbath  is  designated  as  a  high  day,  is  supposed  by  many  to  be 
that  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  or  15th  Nisan,  which  was  a  feast  Sab- 
bath (Exod.  xii.  16),  fell  upon  the  weekly  Sabbath,  and  thus  it  was  a 
double  Sabbath,  and  "a  high  day."  This,  in  itself  considered, 
would  be  a  sufficient  and  satisfactory  explanation.  But  no  weight 
can  be  attached  to  it  as  showing  tiiat  this  was  actually  the  case.  If 
the  weekly  Sabbath  fell  upon  the  16th  Nisan  or  the  second  day  of 
the  feast,  a  day  distinguished  from  the  other  days  as  the  time  for  the 
waving  of  the  sheaf  of  first  fruits,  it  would,  with  equal  propriety,  be 
called  a  high  day.'*  As  said  by  Robinson,  "  It  was  a  high  day,  first, 
because  it  was  the  Sabbath;  second,  it  was  the  day  when  all  the  people 
presented  themselves  in  the  temple;  third,  it  was  the  day  when  the 
sheaf  of  first  fruits  was  offered."  There  are  lo  data  for  a  positive 
decision  of  the  question.  In  point  of  fact,  this  question  is  always 
decided  according  as  the  day  of  the  crucifixion,  for  other  reasons,  is 
placed  upon  the  14th    or    15th  Nisan.     Cudworth's   assertion,  that 


•  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  show  (Journal  Sac.  Lit.,  July,  1850)  that  jropao-Kev^ 
means  properly  "  preparation  time,"  and  comprises  the  interval  between  mid-day  or  the 
sixth  hour  and  sunset  or  the  twelfth.  Translated  according  to  this  view  the  passage 
before  us  would  read:  "  For  about  the  sixth  hour  the  preparation  time  on  passover  day 
commenced."    This  is  hardly  satisfactory,  and  has  not  found  favor. 

*  So  Wies.,  Rob.,  Licht.,  and  many. 


47G  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII 

"great  day,"  in  the  Greek  of  the  Hellenists,  is  used  for  the  first  or 
the  last  day  of  every  feast,  in  which  there  was  a  holy  convocation  to 
the  Lord,  is  not  sustained  by  the  passage  to  which  he  refers  (Isa.  i. 
13).  Every  week  Sabbath  as  well  as  every  feast  Sabbath,  there  was 
a  holy  convocation  (Lev.  xxiii.  3). 

A  new  solution  is  proposed  by  Roth.'  In  place  of  reading  "  The 
day  of  that  Sabbath  was  a  high  day,"  he  would  read  "  That  day  of 
the  week  was  the  great  day "'  (of  the  passover).  This  rests  on  the 
fact  that  "Sabbath"  has  two  meanings:  first,  that  of  the  rest-day  of 
the  week,  the  last  or  seventh;  second,  that  of  the  week  itself,  as  in 
Luke  xviii.  12 :  "I  fast  twice  in  the  week  "  —  5ts  toO  a-a^^drov.  That 
day,  "  the  preparation  "  day,  or  Friday,  was  a  high  day  because  on  it 
the  Lord  was  crucified.  This  rendering,  he  thinks,  would  bring  the 
passage  into  perfect  harmony  with  the  Synoptists.  But  there  are  here 
two  questions,  one,  as  to  the  meaning,  the  other,  as  to  the  difi"ering 
uses  of  "  Sabbath"  in  the  same  verse,  which  must  be  answered;  and 
there  is  also  the  enquiry  as  to  the  bearing  of  the  parenthesis,  "the 
day  of  that  Sabbath  was  a  high  day,"  on  the  taking  down  of  the  bod- 
ies from  the  cross.  On  this  point,  Roth's  explanation  does  not  help 
us. 

Having  now  examined  the  passages  in  John  usually  cited  to  show 
that  he  puts  the  crucifixion  on  the  14th  Nisan,  and  not  on  the  15th,  let 
us  notice  some  objections  to  the  latter  date.  They  all  depend  upon 
one  thing  —  the  legal  sacredness  of  a  feast  Sabbath  and  the  supposed 
strictness  with  which  the  Jews  in  the  Lord's  day  observed  it.  Some- 
thing has  already  been  said  upon  these  points,  but  we  must  enter 
into  more  detail. 

1st.  It  is  said  that  the  Lord's  trial  and  execution  could  not  have 
taken  place  on  the  15th  Nisan.  According  to  Rabbinical  precepts, 
the  Sanhedrin  could  not  have  held  a  session,  they  could  not  have 
sent  armed  men  to  arrest  Jesus;  in  fine,  no  judicial  proceedings 
were  lawful  on  that  day.  But  several  elements  are  here  to  be  taken 
into  account.  We  must  ask  how  far  the  part  which  the  Romans  took 
in  these  transactions  —  the  employment  of  the  Roman  soldiers  to  make 
the  arrest  and  guard  the  prisoner,  the  trial  before  Pilate,  the  sentence 
of  crucifixion,  a  Roman  not  a  Jewish  punishment,  and  its  execution  by 
the  centurion  —  may  have  seemed  to  the  rulers  and  people  to  make 
their  participation  in  it  subordinate,  and  to  relieve  them  from  respon- 
sibility. And  we  must  ask,  also,  whether  these  later  Rabbinical  pre- 
cepts represent  truly  those  then  current  and,  if  so,  whether  the  Jews 
themselves  strictly  observed  them.  .  Bleek  (Beitrage,  140)  admits  that 


1  "DieZeit  des  letzen  Abendmahles."    Freiburg,  1874. 


Part  VII.]  TRIALS   ON   FEAST   SABBATHS.  477 

criminals  were  often  arrested  on  the  Sabbath,  and  of  course,  if  neces- 
sary, by  men  bearing  arms.  (See  Winer,  ii.  537.)  That  the  Sanhedrin 
did  sometimes  hold  its  sessions  on  feast  days  and  Sabbaths  is  proved 
from  the  Gemara,  and  also  that  on  those  days  sentence  of  death 
could  be  passed  and  executed.'  That  the  execution  of  criminals  was 
purposely  reserved  till  the  feasts,  in  order  to  produce  a  greater  im- 
pression upon  the  people,  appears  from  Maimonides,  quoted  by  Ains- 
worth,  on  Deut.  xvii.  13:  "  They  put  him  not  to  death  in  the  judg- 
ment hall,  that  is,  in  his  city,  but  carry  him  up  to  the  high  Synedrion 
in  Jerusalem,  and  keep  him  until  the  feast,  and  strangle  him  at  the 
feast,  as  it  is  said,  '  all  the  people  shall  hear  and  fear.'  "  It  seems, 
also,  to  have  been  the  custom  of  Pilate  and  of  other  governors  who 
always  went  up  to  Jerusalem  at  the  feasts,  then  to  try  and  punish 
criminals;  and  thus  it  was  that  the  two  malefactors  were  crucified  at 
the  same  time  with  Jesus.  The  crucifixion  itself  was  performed,  not 
by  the  Jews,  but  by  Pilate  and  his  soldiers.  The  following  observa- 
tions of  Tholuck  seem  well  founded:  "We  consider  it,  therefore,  as 
certain,  that  judicial  proceedings  were  also  held  on  the  feast  days, 
perhaps  under  certain  legal  provisos,  and  that  this  very  period,  when 
large  assemblages  of  the  people  came  together,  was,  for  the  reason 
mentioned  in  Deut.  xvii.  13,  selected  for  the  execution  of  notorious 
criminals." 

The  assertion  that  the  Synoptists  could  not  have  put  the  Lord's 
arrest,  trial,  and  crucifixion  on  the  first  feast  day  because  they  must 
have  known  such  acts  to  be  unlawful,  assumes  the  point  to  be  proved. 
They  say  that  certain  things  were  done  on  a  certain  day;  the  objector 
replies,  that  the  day  was  too  sacred  to  be  so  desecrated,  and,  therefore, 
we  must  understand  their  words  in  some  other  way.  If,  indeed,  we 
knew  from  other  sources  that  no  such  things  could  have  been  done  on 
this  feast  day,  then  we  might  say  that  the  Synoptists,  who  cannot  have 
been  ignorant  of  Jewish  customs,  must  be  interpreted  accordingly. 
But  our  knowledge  of  the  actual  observance  of  the  day  is  in  large 
part  derived  from  the  Evangelists  themselves.  The  very  fact,  then, 
that  these  Evangelists  do  place  the  arrest,  trial,  and  execution  of 
Jesus  upon  a  feast  Sabbath,  together  with  the  judicial  sessions  of  the 
Sanhedrin,  and  the  subsequent  purchase  of  spices  and  preparations 
for  His  embalming,  gives  the  strongest  presumptive  proof  that  these 
were  not  incompatible  with  the  character  of  the  day.  As  against 
their  statements,  any  Rabbinical  precepts  of  a  later  age  cannot  be 
considered  as  decisive. 


1  See  the  citations  in  Lightfoot;  Tholuck  on  John  xiii.  1:  Wieseler,  Syn.,  361  ff.; 
Keim,  iii.  473. 


478  THE   LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

But  even  if  we  admit  that,  as  a  rule,  the  Jews  did  not  arrest  and 
try  and  execute  criminals  during  the  feasts,  still  the  cases  of  those 
whose  offenses  were  of  a  sacreligious  character,  as  blasphemy  and  the 
like,  may  have  been  an  exception.  How  great  was  the  hate  of  the 
Pharisees  and  chief  priests  and  elders  to  Jesus,  as  making  Himself 
equal  with  God,  we  have  already  had  abundant  opportunities  to 
observe.  They  stuck  at  nothing  if  they  could  but  accomplish  His 
death.  Here,  if  ever,  the  end  would  in  their  eyes  have  justified  the 
means,  and  when  the  long-desired  opportunity  of  getting  their  dreaded 
enemy  into  their  power  came,  they  were  not  likely  to  be  prevented 
from  using  it  by  any  conscientious  scruples  respecting  the  sanctity  of 
the  day.  That  even  the  sanctity  of  the  weekly  Sabbath  was  no  bar- 
rier against  popular  passion,  appears  from  Luke  iv.  16-30,  where  the 
inhabitants  of  Nazareth  attempted  to  put  Jesus  to  death  on  that  day. 
So  also  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem,  at  the  Feast  of  Dedication,  attempted 
first  to  stone  Him,  and  afterward  to  arrest  Him  (John  x.  22-39). 
Upon  the  last  day  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  "  the  great  day  of  the 
feast,"  the  Sanhedrin  was  in  session,  and  officers  were  engaged  in  the 
attempt  to  take  Him  (John  vii.  32-52).  Upon  the  weekly  Sabbath 
the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees  did  not  hesitate  to  go  to  Pilate  to  take 
measures  for  sealing  the  sepulchre  (Matt,  xxvii.  62-66). 

2d.  'It  is  said  that  no  one  after  the  paschal  supper  could  leave 
the  city  till  the  next  morning,  and  that,  therefore,  Jesus,  upon  this 
evening,  could  not  have  gone  to  the  garden  of  Gethsemane.  But  this 
was  based  upon  the  direction  at  its  first  appointment  that  "no  one 
should  go  out  of  his  house  till  the  morning."  (See  Exod.  xii.  22.) 
It  seems  evident,  however,  that  this  direction  was  not  designed  to  be 
permanently  observed  any  more  than  the  command  (verse  11)  to  eat 
it  standing,  with  loins  girded,  shoes  on  the  feet,  and  staff  in  the  hand. 
We  know,  in  point  of  fact,  that  the  Jews  in  the  Lord's  time  did  not 
observe  these  and  other  directions,  regarding  them  as  peculiar  to  its 
first  institution,  and  in  the  nature  of  the  case  not  to  be  repeated. 
Besides  we  have  seen  reason  to  believe  that  all  the  western  slope  of 
the  Mount  of  Olives  was  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  holy  city. 

3d.  It  is  said  that  the  preparation  of  spices  and  ointments  for 
the  Lord's  embalming  upon  the  afternoon  of  the  day  of  the  crucifix- 
ion (Luke  xxiii.  56,  John  xix.  38-40),  implies  that  it  was  not  a  feast 
Sabbath.  Here,  also,  all  depends  upon  the  strictness  with  which  the 
Jews  observed  the  feast  Sabbaths.  As  we  have  seen,  Maimonides 
mentions  bathing  and  anointing  as  things  that  might  be  done  on  the 
feast  days  ;  and,  in  the  very  nature  of  tlie  case,  every  thing  necessary 
to  prepare  the  dead  for  burial  would  then  be  permitted.       But   in 


Part  VII.]        OBSERVANCE   OF   FEAST   SABBATHS.  479 

cases  of  less  urgency  the  same  was  true.  That  purchases  could  be 
made  even  on  the  Sabbath,  is  shown  by  Tholuck  (on  .John  xiii.  1),  if 
the  price  was  not  agreed  upon  and  no  money  paid.  But  with  what- 
soever strictness  the  feast  Sabbath  was  usually  observed,  we  cannot 
question  that  both  .Joseph  and  Nicodemus  would  have  regarded  them- 
selves as  fully  warranted  to  perform,  during  its  hours,  the  last  offices 
of  love  to  one  who  had  taught  in  express  words,  and  shown  by  His 
example,  that  He  was  Lord  of  the  Sabbath.  That  Judas  was  sup- 
posed to  have  gone  out  from  the  supper  (John  xiii.  29)  to  make  pur- 
chases or  to  give  something  to  the  poor,  does  not  show  that  this  was 
not  on  the  evening  after  the  14th,  but  rather  that  it  was.  The 
evening  was  not  a  time  when  he  could  ordinarily  have  found  the  poor 
except  in  their  own  dwellings,  and  it  is  most  improbable  that  he 
would  this  night  have  sought  them  there.  But  if  we  remember  that 
the  poor  gathered  around  the  temple  on  the  first  day  of  the  feast  as 
early  as  the  temple  gates  were  opened  for  the  oflfering  of  the  peace 
and  thank  offering  —  the  Chagigah  —  the  eating  of  which  on  the  first 
day  was  a  chief  element  of  the  feast,  there  was  nothing  strange  in 
the  supposition  that  the  Lord  sent  him  there  to  help  the  poor  to  buy 
something  for  their  festive  meal.' 

4th.  It  is  said  that  the  account  given  of  Simon  of  Cyrene  (Mark 
XV.  21,  Luke  xxiii.  26),  who,  coming  out  of  the  country  at  the  time 
when  Jesus  was  on  His  way  to  the  place  of  crucifixion,  was  compelled 
to  bear  His  cross,  is  additional  evidence  that  this  was  not  a  feast  Sab- 
bath, he  having  probably  been  at  work.  But  if  this  were  so,  we  have 
still  to  inquire  respecting  the  nature  of  the  work.  Lightfoot  supposes 
him  to  have  come  from  the  field  bearing  wood,  which  was  lawful  on 
a  feast  day.  But  it  is  not  said  that  he  had  been  out  in  the  fields  at 
work,  nor  that  he  had  travelled  any  distance ;  and  to  come  from  the 
country  into  the  city  upon  a  feast  Sabbath  was  no  violation  of  any 
law.  For  aught  that  we  know,  he  was  a  resident  of  Jerusalem  who 
was  casually  without  the  wall,  and  was  entering  the  gate  when  he 
met  Jesus;  or  he  may  have  been  a  pilgrim  who  had  come  up  to  the 
feast  and  was  encamped  without  the  city  walls. 

5th.  It  is  said  that  the  Synoptists  in  their  mention  of  the  day  of 
crucifixion,  give  no  hint  that  it  had  a  Sabbatical  character.  It  is 
true  that  they  do  not  do  this  in  express  terms,  but  it  is  involved  in 
their  statement  that  the  Lord  ate  the  passover  at  the  legal  time; 
the  day,  therefore,  of  His  death  was  the  15th,  or  the  first  feast  Sab- 
bath. That  they  designate  it  as  the  preparation  day  without  mak- 
ing prominent  its  Sabbatical  character,  simply  shows  what  great  im- 


'  Joseph.,  Antiq.,  xviii.  2.  2  ;  Edcrsheim,  ii.  506. 


480  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD,  [Part  VII. 

portance  they  attached  to  the  fact  that  the  Lord  died  and  was  buried 
before  the  weekly  Sabbath  began.  This  was  of  far  more  moment  to 
them  as  illustrating  the  relation  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  to  the  Chris- 
tian, than  to  make  prominent  the  Sabbath  character  of  the  first  day 
of  the  feast. 

In  summing  up  our  inquiries,  we  may  distinguish  the  two  points : 
1,  the  time  of  the  paschal  supper,  2,  the  time  of  the  crucifixion. 

1.  (a)  We  accept  as  proved  that  the  statements  of  the  Synoptists 
show  the  Lord  to  have  kejit  the  paschal  supper  at  the  time  when  the 
Jews  in  general  kept  it,  i.  e.  on  the  evening  following  the  14th  Nisan, 
and  in  the  same  manner.  All  attempts  to  show  that  these  statements 
are  inconsistent  with  themselves,  we  must  regard  as  inconclusive. 

(P)  We  find  no  clear  evidence  that  John,  writing  much  later,  and, 
as  we  must  believe,  with  knowledge  of  what  the  Synoptists  had  writ- 
ten, intended  in  his  account  to  correct  them,  and  to  put  the  supper  on 
another  and  earlier  day.  If  he  did  so  intend,  he  would  have  repre- 
sented the  supper  of  the  feet-w\ishing  as  not  a  paschal  supper,  but  as 
held  before  the  legal  time,  and  also  as  identical  with  theirs.  It  is 
claimed  that  he  does  represent  it  as  not  a  paschal  supper  by  the  men- 
tion of  the  time,  and  by  the  absence  in  his  account  of  all  that  indi- 
cates a  paschal  supper.  But,  admitting  that  it  was  not,  does  he  iden- 
tify his  supper  with  that  of  the  Synoptists?  If  not  identical,  he  does 
not  correct  the  Synoptists  as  they  refer  to  a  difi"erent  event. 

Let  us  assume  that  the  supper  in  John  was  not  the  paschal  sup- 
per, and  that  it  was  identical  with  that  of  the  Synoptists ;  it  must 
have  been  either  an  anticipatory  supper  or  an  ordinary  meal.  We 
find  no  good  ground  to  believe  that  the  Lord  would  have  observed 
an  anticipatory  supper,  whether  eaten  with  a  lamb  or  without,  not 
only  because  of  its  illegality  both  as  to  time  and  manner,  but  also  be- 
cause of  an  element  of  unreality  —  a  seeming  observance  —  wholly 
foreign  to  Him  who  came  to  keep  the  law,  and  to  fulfill  all  righteous- 
ness. We  may  rather  believe  that  He  observed  no  quasi-paschal 
supper,  but  mot  the  apostles  at  an  ordinary  meal.  In  this  case,  how- 
ever, why  go  to  Jerusalem  at  all  since  this  meal  might  have  been  at 
Bethany?  And  why  do  the  Synoptists  affirm  so  clearly  that  his  mes- 
sengers were  sent  to  prepare,  and  did  prepare  the  passover?  And 
as  it  is  admitted  that  the  Lord  instituted  His  supper  in  connec- 
tion with  a  supper  preceding  it,  if  this  was  an  ordinary  meal,  he  nuist 
have  instituted  His  supper  in  the  absence  of  all  those  typical  ele- 
ments that  gave  to  the  paschal  supper  its  significance;  a  view  in  itself 
incredible,  and  directly   contradicted   by   the    Synoptical    accounts. 

2.  (a)  We  find  no  clear  evidence  that  John  intended  to  correct  the 


Part  VII.]      EVENTS   AT   THE   PASCHAL   SUPPER.  481 

Synoptists  as  to  the  day  of  the  crucifixion.  The  argument  derived 
from  the  fear  of  defilement  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  and  from  their 
desire  to  eat  the  passover  (John  xviii.  28),  depends  upon  the  meaning 
of  a  word  wliich  confessedly  is  used  with  large  latitude,  and  its  sig- 
nificance here  is  very  uncertain.  The  point  is  one  that  must  be  deter- 
mined rather  on  historical  than  on  grammatical  grounds,  and  we 
seem  to  find  it  used  in  the  large  and  indefinite  sense  which  would  nat- 
urally follow  from  John's  Christian  position,  and  the  later  date  of  his 
gospel.  The  argument  from  the  phrase,  "preparation  of  the  pass- 
over"  (John  xix.  14),  is  of  a  similar  kind. 

(i)  We  find  no  sufficient  proof  that  the  first  feast  day,  the  15th 
Nisan,  was  held  so  sacred  by  the  Jews  that  they  would  not  have 
arrested  and  tried  the  Lord  on  that  day,  and  the  more  readily  that 
the  chief  responsibility  and  entire  execution  vested  in  the  Roman 
governor. 

(c)  But  if  generally  strictly  keeping  it,  we  can  easily  believe  that 
the  rulers  would  not  have  counted  it  a  work  unworthy  of  a  holy  day, 
to  arrest  and  condemn  one  who  blasphemously  asserted  Himself  to 
be  their  Messiah,  and  more,  to  be  the  Son  of  God ;  and  whose  accept- 
ance by  the  people  would  be  the  overthrow  of  the  city  and  temjDle, 
and  the  destruction  of  the  nation.  To  destroy  such  a  man,  and  to 
avoid  so  great  danger,  would  justify  a  transgression  of  the  feast  laws. 

Among  the  more  important  recent  discussions  of  the  questions  con- 
nected with  this  last  passover,  are  those  of  Wieseler,  Beitrdge,  230  ff. ; 
Langeu,  Die  letzten  Lebenstage  Jesu^  50  f[. ;  Farrar,  Life  of  Christ, 
excursus  X;  Edersheim,  Temple  Service,  appendix;  Keini,  Oeschichte 
Jesu,  iii.  460  flf. ;  McClellan,  Harmony,  473  if. ;  the  monographs  of 
Schlirer,  Roth,  Rope,  and  others;  the  articles  in  the  Bible  Diction- 
aries, of  which  may  be  mentioned  that  of  Ginsberg  in  Alexander's 
Kitto  Cyclopedia,  and  that  of  Delitzsch  in  Riehm's  Handworterbuch. 

Evening  following  Thursday,  14th  Nisan,  beginning 
OP    loTH  Nisan,  7th  Apeil. 

As  the  disciples  are  about  to  take  their  places  at  the  Luke  xxii.  24-30. 
table,  Jesus  observes  a  strife  aiiiong  them  for  precedency 

and  seats  of  honor.    To  rebuke  them,  He  arises  and  girds  John  xiii.  1-20. 

Himself,  and  proceeds  to  wash   their  feet.      Afterward,  Luke  xxii.  15-18. 

while  they  are  eating,  He  declares  that  one  of  them  will  Matt.  xxvi.  21-24, 

betray  Him.     The  declaration  creates  great  excitement  Mark  xiv.  18-21. 

among  the  apostles,  and  they  begin  to  ask  anxiously,  Is  it  Luke  xxii.  21-23. 

I  ?    The  Lord  describes  the  traitor  as  one  that  is  eating  John  xiii.  21,  22. 

with  Him,  but  without  designating  him  further.     Peter  John  xiii.  23-35. 
makes  a  sign  to  John  to  ask  Him  who  it  is,  which  he  does, 
21 


483  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

and  Jesus  gives  him  privately  a  sign  ;    and  dipping  the 

6op,  gives  it  to  Judas,  who  asks,  is  it  I  ?    Jesus  answers  Matt.  xxvi.  25. 

him  affirmatively,  and  he  immediately  goes  out,  to  the  sur-  Matt.  xxvi.  26-29. 

jn'ise  of  those  apostles  who  do  not  understand  the  cause.  Mark  xiv.  22-25. 

After  the  departure  of  Judas,  the  Lord  proceeds  to  the  Luke  xxii.  19,  20. 
institution  of  the  eucharistic  supper. 

Assuming,  upon  grounds  already  stated,  that  John  and  the 
Synoptists  both  refer  to  the  same  supper,  and  that  the  paschal 
supper,  we  may  now  attempt  to  arrange  its  events  in  a  chrono- 
logical order.  This  is  very  difficult,  as  no  one  of  the  Evangelists 
has  so  given  them.  There  are  four  points  that  especially  de- 
mand our  attention:  The  strife  for  precedency  ;  the  washing  of 
the  apostles'  feet  ;  the  announcement  of  Judas'  treachery  and 
his  departure;  and  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  supper.  Let  us 
take  the  order  of  Luke  (xxii.  14  ff.)  as  the  fullest  in  its  details. 

1.  The  Lord  and  the  Twelve  sit  down  to  the  paschal  sup- 
per. 2.  The  cup  is  divided  among  them,  and  the  supper 
follows,  presumably  in  the  accustomed  order.  3.  Institution  of 
the  Lord's  supper.  4.  Announcement  of  Judas'  treachery.  5. 
Strife  for  precedence.  John  alone  mentions  two  events  addi- 
tional, the  feet  washing  and  the  departure  of  Judas,  but  he 
omits  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  supper  which  the  Synoptists 
have.  All  have  in  common  the  announcement  of  Judas'  treach- 
ery, but  Luke  alone  the  strife  for  precedence. 

The  feet  washing.  "We  may  best  examine  the  matter  of  order,  if  we 
begin  with  the  feet  washing  (John  xiii.  2  flf.);  at  what  period  of  the 
supper  is  it  to  be  placed?  and  the  first  inquiry  must  be  as  to  the  text. 
In  the  Textus  R.  it  is  Mwov  yevofxivov,  translated  "supper  being 
ended " ;  accepting  this,  the  feet  washing  was  after  the  supper. 
(Others  translate  it,  "  during  supper, "  Norton;  "while  they  were  at 
supper,"  Campbell ;  "  supper  being  prepared,"  or  "going  on,"  Alford.) 
But  Tisch.  and  W.  and  H.  read  Mnvov  jLvoixivov,  in  R.  V.:  "during 
supper;"  in  Meyer,  "while  it  is  becoming  supper  time,"  i.  e. ,  they 
had  reclined  at  the  table,  but  the  supjier  had  not  yet  begun.  (So 
Luthardt:  "They  were  on  the  point  of  beginning  the  meal.") 

The  feet  washing  may  then  be  put  at  the  beginning  of  the  supper. 
Was  this  an  act  customary  on  grounds  of  cleanliness?  It  seems 
not  to  have  been  uncommon  at  feasts,  but  was  not  always  prac- 
ticed (Luke  vii.  44).  The  references  to  the  Old  Testament  show  only 
that   it   was   customary  to  wash  the   feet  after   a  journey,    and  not 


Part  VTL]      WASHING   OF   THE   APOSTLJES   FEET.   ,  483 

always  before  a  meal.  But  when  this  was  done,  it  was  by  the  ministry 
of  slaves  or  servants.  It  is  said  by  Thomson  (i.  183),  on  the  ground 
of  oriental  usage,  that  it  was  at  the  close  of  the  meal,  it  being  cus- 
tomary to  wash  the  hands  and  mouth  after  eating.  "  The  j^itcher  and 
ewer  are  always  brouglit,  and  the  servant  with  a  napkin  over  his 
shoulder,  pours  water  on  your  hands.  If  there  is  no  servant,  they  per- 
form this  office  for  one  another."  But  in  this  case  the  Lord  must  have 
washed  both  hands  and  feet ;  it  is,  however,  plain  from  Peter's  words 
(verse  9)  that  He  washed  their  feet  only.  Some,  assuming  that  it  was 
customary,  think  that  the  Lord  acted  as  the  servant  because  no  one  of 
the  apostles  was  willing  to  render  this  service  to  the  rest,  no  servant 
being  present  to  do  it.  (So  Bengel,  Ebrard,  Nebe,  Lindsay.)  But 
we  may  rather  regard  it  as  unusual,  and  having  now  a  special  cause. 
All  do  not,  however,  put  it  at  the  beginning  of  the  meal ;  some,  as 
Langen,  put  it  at  the  end  of  the  paschal  supjier  and  before  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Lord's  suj^per;  and  others  still  later. 

It  does  not  appear  with  which  of  the  apostles  the  Lord  began  the 
feet  washing.  According  to  Chrysostom,  it  was  Judas ;  to  Augustine, 
Peter;  and  with  him  agree  the  Roman  Catholic  commentators  and 
many  Protestants.  "If  He  did  observe  any  order,"  says  Lightfoot, 
"  He  began  with  Peter  who  sat  in  the  next  place  immediately  to  Him- 
self." This  commentator  supposes  that  He  washed  only  the  feet  of 
Peter,  James,  and  John,  thus  avoiding  the  washing  of  Judas.  Bengel 
infers  from  verse  6:  "So  He  cometh  to  Simon  Peter,"  that  Peter 
was  not  the  first.  (So  Luthardt.)  It  seems  evident  from  verses  5  and 
6,  that  He  did  not  go  first  to  Peter,  and  from  verses  10  and  11  that 
the  feet  of  Judas  were  washed,  for  had  the  Lord  not  done  this,  the 
neglect  would  at  once  have  called  attention  to  him.  According  to 
Greswell,  He  began  with  Peter  and  ended  with  Judas. 

Strife  for  precedence.  We  may  thus  place  the  feet  washing  at  the 
beginning  of  the  supper,  and  find  the  special  occasion  for  it  in  the 
strife  of  the  apostles  for  ])recedence  mentioned  by  Luke  (xxii.  24) : 
"And  there  was  also  a  strife  among  them,  which  of  them  should 
be  accounted  the  greatest."  This  strife  would  come  most  naturally 
at  the  beginning  of  the  supper,  and  find  its  cause  in  the  desire  to  be 
as  near  to  the  Lord  as  possible,  the  present  degree  of  nearness  to  the 
King  being  an  index  of  rank  in  the  future  Messianic  kingdom.  It 
is  scarce  possil)le  that  at  a  later  period,  after  the  discovery  of  the 
treason  of  Judas,  and  with  the  solemn  impression  which  the  Lord's 
words  respecting  his  guilt  and  punishment  must  have  made  upon 
them,  and  after  they  had  eaten  His  sacred  supper,  any  such  strife 
could  have  occurred. 


484  LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD,  [Part  VII, 

If  then  "we  corabiue  the  two  accounts  of  Luke  and  John,  we  find 
a  consistent  narrative.  The  Lord  noting  this  strife  as  they  were 
about  to  begin  the  meal,  first  rebukes  the  apostles  in  words,  and 
then  proceeds  to  teach  tliem  in  a  symbolic  manner  that  their  real 
greatness  was  in  their  humility,  by  girding  Himself  and  proceeding 
to  wash  their  feet  —  the  duty  of  a  servant.  Both  events  are  thus 
internally  connected  together,  and  both  are  to  be  placed  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  supper. 

Aimouncement  of  Judas's  treaeliery.  The  third  point  is  the  announce- 
ment by  the  Lord  of  the  treachery  of  Judas,  and  the  departure  of  the 
traitor.  But  before  considering  this,  it  is  necessary  to  recall  to  mind 
the  order  of  the  paschal  supper,'  and  to  have  before  us  the  probable 
positions  of  Peter,  John,  and  Judas  at  the  table. 

(«)  The  supper  opens  with  a  glass  of  wine  mingled  with  water, 
preceded  by  a  blessing,  and  followed  by  washing  of  the  hands.  2. 
Giving  of  thanks  and  eating  of  the  bitter  herbs.  3.  Bringing  in  of 
the  unleavened  bread,  the  sauce,  the  lamb,  and  the  flesh  of  the  cha- 
gigah,  and  thank  offerings.  4.  Benediction.  The  bitter  herbs 
dipped  in  the  sauce  are  eaten.  5.  The  second  cup  is  mixed,  and  the 
father  explains  to  his  children  the  origin  of  the  feast.  6.  The  first 
part  of  the  Hallel  (Psalms  cxiii.  and  cxiv.)  is  sung,  prayer  ofi"ered, 
and  the  second  cup  drunk.  7.  The  father  washes  his  hands,  takes 
two  loaves  of  bread,  breaks  one  and  blesses  it,  takes  a  piece  and 
wrap2:)ing  it  in  the  bitter  herbs,  dips  it  in  the  sauce  and  eats  it  with 
thanksgiving.  Giving  thanks,  he  then  eats  of  the  chagigah,  and 
again  giving  thanks,  eats  of  the  lamb.  8.  The  meal  continues,  each 
eating  what  he  pleases,  but  eating  last  of  the  lamb.  After  this  is 
consumed,  no  more  is  eaten.  9.  He  washes  his  hands  and  takes 
the  third  cup  after  giving  thanks.  10.  The  second  part  of  the  Hallel 
(Psalms  cxv.-cxviii.)  is  sung.  11.  The  fourth  cup  is  taken,  and 
sometimes  a  fifth.  13.  The  supper  concludes  with  singing  the  great 
Hallel  (Psalms  cxx.-cxxvii.) 

Upon  several  of  these  points  there  is  dispute  among  the  Jewish 
writers,  but  the  order  as  here  given  is  substantially  according  to  the 
paschal  ritual  of  the  Talmudists.  Whether  this  order  was  generally 
followed  in  our  Saviour's  time  is  very  doubtful;  nor  if  so,  is  it  cer- 
tain that  He  strictly  followed  it. 

(5)  The  data  to  determine  the  positions  of  the  apostles  at  the  table 
are  very  scanty.  As  the  Lord  had  often  eaten  with  the  Twelve,  we 
may  jjresume  that  there  had  been  some  order  which  they  followed  in 


»  For  this,  see  Lightfoot  and  Meyer  on  Matt.   xxvi.  26  ;    Friedlieb,  Arch.,  54  ; 
Langen,  148;  \yeichel.,  347;  Eders.,  The  Temple  and  ite  Services,  ch.  vi. 


Part  VIL] 


POSITIONS   AT   TABLE. 


485 


taking  their  places ;  whether  hitherto  Peter  had  had  the  place  of  honor 
nearest  the  Lord  and  John  next  to  him,  we  cannot  tell.  This  is 
said  by  Langen,  who  affirms  that  no  one  would  think  of  disputing 
Peter's  place  as  the  first  in  rank.  It  is  said  by  Nebe  that  the  Lord  at 
this  time  gave  John  the  highest  place,  and  that  this  occasioned  the 
strife;  but  this  is  not  warranted  by  anything  in  the  narrative.  We 
know  only  that  John  was  nearest  the  Lord  (xiii.  23).  As  to  the  posi- 
tion of  Judas  we  have  only  the  datum  in  Matt.  xxvi.  23:  "  He  that 
dippeth  his  hand  with,  me  in  the  dish,  the  same  shall  betray  me  " ;  and 
the  giving  of  the  sop  to  him  (John  xiii.  26),  indicating  that  he  was 
not  far  from  the  Lord.  It  is  said  by  Edersheim  (ii.  493)  that  "he 
claimed  and  obtained  the  chief  seat  at  tlie  table  next  the  Lord."  (So 
Keil.)  As  this  view  of  the  positions  of  the  chief  actors  is  peculiar 
we  give  his  diagram. 


5 


A.  The  table.  B  B.  The  heads  of  the  divans  on  which  the  guests 
reclined.  The  chief  place,  that  occupied  by  the  Lord.  The  next 
place  in  honor,  that  occupied  by  Judas  on  the  left  of  the  Lord ;  the 
lowest  of  all,  that  occupied  by  Peter.  The  lowest  place  was  volunta- 
rily taken  by  Peter,  who  felt  keenly  the  Lord's  rebuke  of  this  strife 
for  precedence. 

We  give  also  a  diagram  of  a  Roman  triclinium  from  Orelli's  Hor- 
ace, excursus  to  Sat.  IT.  8,  furnished  by  Dr.  Hart,  who  also  suggests 
the  places  occupied  by  the  Lord  and  John  and  Judas. 


486 


THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  VIL 

Medius  Lectus. 


Imus  Lectus. 


SuMMus  Lectus. 


*  Locus  consularis,  for  the  chief  guest,  f  Host's  seat;  here  the 
the  Lord  sat,  St.  John  at  |,  Judas  at  *. ' 

We  may  now  return  to  the  announcement  by  the  Lord  of  the 
treachery  of  Judas,  and  enquire  at  what  point  in  the  meal  it  is  to  be 
put. 

Judas  pointed  out  as  the  traitor.  The  first  allusion  to  him  was 
while  washing  the  feet  of  Peter  (John  xiii.) :  "Ye  are  clean,  but  not 
all."  Again,  after  the  washing  the  Lord  said:  "I  speak  not  of  you 
all.  .  .  .  He  that  eateth  bread  with  me  hath  lift  up  his  heel 
against  me  "  (see  Ps.  xli.  9).  This  prophecy  was  now  finding  its  ful- 
fillment in  one  sitting  and  eating  at  the  same  table  with  Him.  But 
these  intimations  were  too  obscure  to  make  any  special  impression  upon 
their  minds,  and  He  therefore,  soon  after  declares  in  plain  words  that 
one  of  them  should  betray  Him.  (All  the  Evangelists  mention  this; 
Luke  with  a  little  difference  of  phraseology,  and  John  with  the  addi- 
tional circumstance  that  "He  was  troubled  in  spirit  and  testified.") 
This  distinct  utterance  at  once  attracts  their  deep  attention,  and  thej^ 
all  begin  to  ask  Him,  "  Lord,  is  it  I?"  In  reply  He  says  (Matt,  and 
Mark),  it  is  one  of  the  Twelve  who  dippeth  his  hand  with  me  in  the 
dish.  .  .  .  (The  R.  V.  reads  in  Matt.  XX vi.  23:  "he  that  dipped 
his  hand.")  In  this  designation  of  the  traitor  He  does  not  seem  to 
refer  to  any  present  act  of  eating,  but  to  the  fact  that  he  was  sitting 
and  partaking  with  Him  at  the  same  table.  From  these  words,  there- 
fore, the  apostles  could  not  tell  who  of  them  was  meant.  The  same 
indefinitenesa  of  expression  is  found  in  Luke:   "Behold,  the  hand  of 


1  Pieritz :  The  Gospels  from  the  Rabbinical  Point  of  View,  London,  1873  (15), 
denies  that  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  Jews  at  this  time  followed  the  Roman  mode 
of  reclining  at  table.  He  supposes  that  the  Lord  and  the  apostles  sat  in  a  circle  around 
a  table  on  which  was  only  one  dish,  into  which  all  dipped.  But  against  this  the  language 
of  the  Evangelists  is  decisive:  Mark  xiv.  18,  Matt.  xxvi.  20,  in  both  cases,  avaKunai 
Luke  xxii.  14,  John  xiii.  12,  avanlTrTta.  See  T.  G.  Lex.,  mb  rocibus;  Light,  on  Matt.  xxvi. 
20.  Sepp  (vi.  65)  thinks  Peter  to  have  been  on  the  right  of  Jesus,  and  John  on  his  left. 
He  also  gives  the  positions  of  all  the  rest,  which  is,  of  course,  only  conjecture. 


Part  VII.]  THE  POINTING   OUT   OF  JUDAS.  487 

him  that  betrayeth  me  is  with  me  on  the  table."  Some,  however, 
find  in  the  language  of  Mark  xiv.  20,  "  One  of  the  Twelve  that  dippeth 
with  me  in  the  dish,"  a  specific  designation  of  Judas.  "  The  express- 
ion seems  to  describe  the  traitor  as  particularly  near  to  Christ  at 
table,  and  in  some  peculiar  sense  partaking  with  Him."  '  This  is  not 
likely  unless  there  was  more  than  one  dish  into  which  they  dipped 
their  morsels.  It  is  possible  that  Judas  may  have  been  sitting  near 
to  Jesus,  and  both  have  been  dipping  at  the  time  in  the  same  dish ; 
but,  if  so,  it  is  plain  that  the  others  did  not  yet  know  who  was  meant. 

At  this  point,  when  all  doubtless  had  suspended  eating,  and  their 
anxiety  was  at  its  height,  and  all  were  looking  upon  one  another 
doubting  of  whom  He  spake,  and  asking.  Is  it  I?  Peter  beckons  to 
John  to  ask  Him  who  it  was  (John  xiii.  24)."  To  John's  question, 
"Lord,  who  is  it  ?"  which,  probably,  from  his  position  as  lying  on 
Jesus'  breast,  was  unheard  by  the  others,  He  replied,  "  He  it  is  to 
whom  I  shall  give  a  sop  when  I  have  dipped  it."  '  It  is  not  jirobable 
4hat  this  reply  was  heard  by  any  one  but  John.  Taking  a  piece  of 
the  bread  and  dipping  it  in  the  broth,  He  gives  it  to  Judas,  and  thus 
he  is  revealed  as  the  traitor  to  John,  but  to  none  of  the  others.  It 
may  be  that,  on  receiving  the  sop,  Judas  saw  that  his  treachery  was 
known  not  only  to  Jesus  but  also  to  John;  and,  knowing  that  all 
longer  concealment  is  useless,  he  now  asks  as  the  rest  had  done,  but 
mockingly,  "  Lord,  is  it  I  ?  "  (Matt.  xxvi.  25).  To  his  question  the 
Lord  replies,  "Thou  hast  said,"  or  in  other  words,  "  Thou  art  the 
man." 

There  is  some  difficulty  in  determining  when  Judas  asked  this 
question  and  the  Lord  replied,  from  the  fact  that  John  does  not  men- 
tion the  question  of  Judas,  "  Lord,  is  it  I? "  and  that  when  the  former 
went  out,  none  of  the  apostles  seem  to  have  known  the  cause  of  his 
departure  (John  xiii.  28,  29).  Grotius  supposes  it  to  have  been  asked 
before  Peter  beckoned  to  John,  the  Lord's  reply  not  being  heard  by 
him;  and  Friedlieb  puts  it  before  the  sign  of  the  sop  given  to  John. 
In  the  general  agitation  and  confusion  the  Lord's  reply  was  unno- 
ticed. According  to  Ebrard  (518),  the  Lord  answered  John's  ques- 
tion, "Who  is  it?"  openly,  so  that  all  knew  who  was  meant,  and 
then  Judas  asked,  "  Is  it  I?  "     According  to  some,  as  Stier,  all  heard 


1  Alexander,  in  loco  ;  Meyer. 

2  The  test,  as  given  by  Tischendorf,  W.  and  H.,  makes  the  question  to  have  been 
addressed  by  Peter  to  John.  R.  V.:  "  Simon  Peter  therefore  beckoneth  to  him  and  saith 
to  him,  Tell  us  who  it  is  of  whom  He  speaketh."  Peter  first  beckons  to  John  to  gain 
his  attention,  and  then  asks  him,  supposing  that  he  may  know,  but  he,  being  ignorant, 
asks  Jesus. 

3  Tischendorf  and  W.  and  H.  read  pii^u.  R.  V. :  "  He  it  is,  for  whom  I  shall  dip 
the  sop,  and  give  it  him." 


488  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

the  question  of  Judas,  but  uone  specially  marked  it,  as  all  had  asked 
the  same,  aud  no  suspicion  seems  to  have  attached  to  him  in  particu- 
lar. The  difficulty,  however,  is  not  with  the  question  of  Judas,  which 
might  easily  have  passed  unnoticed,  but  with  the  Lord's  reply, 
which,  if  heard,  was  too  direct  to  have  been  misunderstood.  If 
Judas  had  been  thus  openly  designated  as  a  traitor,  how  could  the 
other  apostles  suppose  that  he  was  sent  out  to  execute  some  official 
commission?  Some,  therefore,  suppose  that  both  ijuestiou  and  reply 
were  in  a  whisper  or  very  low  tone  of  voice,  and  inaudible  to  the 
others.'  This  is  possible  if  Judas  was  very  near  the  Lord,  perhaps 
upon  one  side  as  John  was  upon  the  other,  as  some  have  inferred 
from  Mark  xiv.  18.  In  this  case  what  was  said  might  easily  have 
escaped  the  ears  of  the  other  apostles  ;  and  it  seems  that  Judas  must 
have  been  near  Him  when  he  received  the  sop.  According  to  some, 
both  question  and  reply  were  not  by  words,  but  by  signs.  Others 
still  suppose  that  both  were  heard  and  understood  by  all  present,  but 
that  the  apostles,  looking  forward  to  the  betrayal  as  not  imminent,  di(i 
not  imagine  that  His  words,  spoken  immediately  after,  "  That  thou 
doest,  do  quickly  "  (John  xiii.  27-29),  had  any  reference  to  the  exe- 
cution of  his  treacherous  project.  This  is  not  impossible  but  im- 
probable. 

At  what  point  during  the  supper  Judas  went  out  is  uncertain,  and 
we  can  best  determine  it  when  we  have  inquired  as  to  the  time  when 
the  Lord  instituted  His  supper. 

Institution  of  the  LorcVs  shipper.  It  is  most  likely  that  the  Lord 
observed  the  usual  paschal  ritual  to  the  end,  and  then  took  of  the 
remaining  bread  and  wine  for  His  institution ;  and  this  is  the  more 
general  oiDinion.  But  those  who  deny  that  this  was  the  true  paschal 
supper  and  regard  it  as  anticipatory  or  commemorative,  think  that  He 
did  not  follow  this  ritual,  but  blended  the  two,  putting  some  inter- 
val of  time  between  the  blessing  of  the  sacramental  bread  and  of  the 
cup;  the  former  being  during  the  feast  and  the  latter  after  it.  (So 
Greswell;  Godet  says  that  "  He  transformed,  as  He  went  along,  the 
Jewish  supper  in  such  a  way  as  to  convert  it  into  the  sacred  supper.") 
But  assuming  that  this  was  the  true  paschal  supper,  let  us  examine 
the  Synoptical  accounts. 

Order  of  the  mpjjer.  The  order  may  be  most  clearly  seen  in  its  re- 
lation to  the  evangelical  narratives,  if  we  consider  it  in  connection 
with  the  several  cups  of  wine.  "  Four  cups  of  wine,"  says  Lightfoot, 
"  were  to  be  drank  up  by  every  one."     The  first  was  introductory,  with 


1  So  Langen,  Stroud,  Edors.;  Farrar  thinks  that  Peter  and  John  heard;  Godet 
that  the  act  of  giving  the  sop  to  Judaa  was  the  reply  to  his  question,  and  that  Matthew 
has  translated  the  act  into  words. 


Part  VTI.]  ORDER   OF  PASCHAL  SUPPER.  489 

thanksgiving.  This  was  followed  by  the  bringing  in  of  the  bitter  herbs 
and  partial  eating  of  them ;  the  bringing  in  of  the  bread,  the  sauce,  the 
lamb,  and  the  chagigah;  the  explanation  of  the  meaning  of  the  feast, 
and  the  first  part  of  the  Hallel.  The  second  cup  which  was  followed 
by  the  eating  of  the  unleavened  bread,  of  the  chagigah,  and  of  the  lamb. 
The  third  cup,  commonly  called  the  cup  of  blessing,  and  after  it,  the 
second  part  of  the  Hallel  was  sung.  The  fourth  cup  was  drunk. 
If  the  great  Hallel  was  sung,  there  was  a  fifth  cup.  All  that  took 
place  between  the  first  and  second  cups  was  introductory  to  the  meal. 
The  feast  proper  began  with  the  second  cup  and  ended  with  the 
third.  Except  the  partial  eating  of  the  bitter  herbs,  nothing  was 
eaten  before  the  second,  and  nothing  at  all  was  eaten  after  the  third. 
The  singing  of  the  second  part  of  the  Hallel,  and  the  fourth  cup, 
generally  closed  the  feast. 

If  we  now  turn  to  the  Evangelists,  we  find  that  Luke  only  (xxii. 
17,  20)  mentions  two  cups  of  wine.  To  which  of  tlie  four  custom- 
,  ary  cups  of  the  paschal  supper  shall  these  be  referred?  Many  iden- 
tify the  first  of  Luke  with  the  first  of  the  supper.'  But  against  this 
an  argument  is  found  in  the  Lord's  words  (verses  16  and  18),  that  He 
would  no  more  eat  or  drink  of  the  passover  till  the  kingdom  of  God 
should  come,  which  seem  to  imply  that  He  had  already  eaten  and 
drunken,  and  that  the  paschal  supper  was  over.  The  words,  how- 
ever, may  mean  no  more  than  that  He  would  partake  of  no  passover 
after  the  present. 

Some,  however,  make  the  first  cup  of  Luke  to  have  been  the  third 
of  the  paschal  supper."  The  supper  was  then,  so  far  as  eating  the 
passover  was  concerned,  fully  over;  and  His  words,  "With  desire 
have  I  desired  to  eat  this  passover  with  you  before  I  suffer, "  refer  to 
His  own  supper  which  He  was  about  to  establish.  Bucher  (743) 
refers  these  words  in  Luke  (verses  15-18)  to  the  paschal  supper  just 
ended ;  but  Matt.  xxvi.  29  and  Mark  xiv.  25,  to  the  eucharistic  supper. 

The  second  cup  of  Luke  (verse  20)  was  that  "after  supper"  (see 
also  1  Cor.  xi.  25),  and  is  the  same  as  that  mentioned  by  Matt.  xxvi.  27 
and  Mark  xiv.  23.  To  which  of  the  four  cups  of  the  supper  does  this 
correspond?  Many  refer  it  to  the  third.'  Of  this  cup,  Brown  remarks: 
"It  was  emphatically  called  'the  cup  of  blessing,'  because,  while  it 
stood  before  them,  the  ^^resident  did  what  we  commonly  do  at  the 
end  of  a  feast — he  returned  thanks  to  the  Father  of  all  for  every 
temporal  and  spiritual  blessing,  but  especially  that  of  the  passover." 
To  this  some  suppose  St.  Paul  to  refer  (1  Cor.  x.  16):  "The  cup  of 
blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of 


^  So  Robinson,  Stier,  Alford,  Godet.  2  Brown,  Antiq.,  465. 

8  Lightfoot,  Lange,  Rob.,  Licht. 


490  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIL 

Christ?"  It  is  observed  by  Lightfoot  (Matt.  xxvi.  27):  "  Here  it  is 
that  Luke  and  Paul  say  that  He  took  the  cup  after  supper,  that  is, 
that  cup  which  closed  up  the  supper." 

If  the  third  cup  or  "  cup  of  blessing"  was  the  Lord's  sacramental 
cup,  as  is  most  probable,  the  blessing  of  the  sacramental  bread  must 
have  preceded  it.  We  may  say,  either  that  after  the  lamb  had  been 
eaten  and  before  the  drinking  of  the  third  cup,  He  took  of  the  bread 
and  blessed  it  and  gave  them  tc  eat ;  or  that  He  partook  of  the  third 
cup  as  the  last  part  of  the  paschal  supper  and  then  proceeded  to  the 
institution  of  His  supper  by  blessing  the  bread  and  giving  the  cup. 

Some,  however,  make  the  second  cup  of  Luke  to  have  been  the 
fourth  cup.'  The  chief  argument  for  this  is,  that  if  it  was  the  third 
cup,  the  fourth  cup  must  have  been  wholly  omitted,  which  is  not 
probable.  Of  this  fourth  cup,  Brown  remarks:  "We  are  not  partic- 
ularly informed  whether  it  immediately  succeeded  the  third,  or  that 
a  certain  interval  was  between  them.  But  we  know  that  it  was 
called  the  cup  of  the  Hallel  because  the  president  finished  over  it  the 
Hallel  which  he  had  begun  over  the  second  cup."  Still,  as  this  ob- 
servance respecting  the  four  cups  of  wine  was  not  commanded  in  the 
law,  Jesus  might  not  have  regarded  it,  and  have  sung  the  hymn  after 
tlie  third.  It  is  said  by  Lightfoot :  "Whether  He  made  use  of  this 
cup  also,  we  do  not  dispute,  it  is  certain  He  used  the  hymn."  If, 
however,  a  cup  was  taken  after  the  sacramental  cup,  which  is  not 
probable,  it  is  not  mentioned. 

Confining  ourselves  to  those  arrangements  that  assume  the  Lord  to 
have  kept  the  paschal  supper  according  to  the  Jewish  ritual,  we  may 
thus  classify  them : 

1.  That  the  paschal  supper  was  wholly  finished,  the  fourth  cup 
having  been  drunk  and  the  lesser  Hallel  sung,  when  the  Lord  insti- 
tuted His  supper.     (Langen  and  many.) 

2.  That  the  paschal  supper  as  to  its  essential  part  was  ended,  the 
lamb  having  been  eaten.  At  this  point  the  Lord  blessed  the  bread, 
and  made  the  third  cup  His  sacramental  cup.  (Light.,  Eders.,  Tisch., 
and  most.)  Others,  that  the  fourth  cup  was  the  sacramental  cup. 
(Meyer,  Brown;  Bynaeus  hesitates  between  the  third  and  fourth. 
The  arrangements  of  these  who  hold  that  the  supper  was  anticipatory 
and  without  tlie  lamb,  are  various  and  need  not  be  stated  here.) 

We  conclude  that  the  second  of  the  above  arrangements  has  most 
in  its  favor.  The  Lord  partook  with  the  others  of  the  ])aschal  lamb, 
and  when  the  law  had  been  thus  fulfilled  and  the  supper  ended,  before 
proceeding  to  take  the  cup  after  supper,  the  cup  of  blessing,  took 
bread,  probably   the  unleavened  bread  upon   the  table,  and  gave 

1  Meyer,  Brown. 


Part  VII.]  DEPARTURE   OF  JUDAS.  491 

thanks,  and  declaring  it  to  be  His  body,  gave  them  to  eat.  It  had 
been  a  rule  that  the  paschal  lamb  should  be  the  last  thing  eaten ;  but 
He  now  set  this  aside  and  gave  them  the  flesh  of  "the  Lamb  slain 
from  the  foundation  of  tlie  world."  He  now  took  the  cuj),  and  giv- 
ing thanks,  gave  it  to  them  that  all  might  drink.  By  thus  placing 
the  taking  of  the  eucharistic  bread  immediately  after,  and  in  connec- 
tion with,  the  eating  of  the  paschal  lamb,  we  best  meet  the  state- 1 
ments  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  that  "  as  they  were  eating  —  iadidvrwv 
avrOiv — He  took  bread,"  etc.  (See  Eders.,  ii.  511:  "  He  connected 
with  the  breaking  of  the  unleavened  cake  at  the  close  of  the  paschal 
meal,  the  breaking  of  the  bread  and  the  eucharist.") 

After  this  discussion  as  to  the  time  of  the  institution  of  the  sacra- 
mental supper,  we  return  to  the  question  whether  Judas  departed 
before  or  after  the  institution. 

Departure  of  Judas.  Matthew  (xxvi.  25),  who  alone  relates  the 
question  of  Judas,  "  Master,  is  it  I  ?  "  and  the  Lord's  reply,  "  Thou 
hast  said,"  says  nothing  of  his  departure,  but  mentions  the  euchar- 
istic supper  as  taking  place  after  the  question  and  reply.  John 
(xiii.  26-30),  who  mentions  his  departure  immediately  after  receiving 
the  sop,  says  nothing  of  the  eucharistic  supper.  The  Evangelists 
Mark  and  Luke  do  not  speak  of  Judas  by  name.  Where  then,  in 
Matthew's  narrative,  shall  we  insert  his  departure?  Probably  between 
verses  25  and  26.  (So  Ellicott,  Meyer.)  From  the  expression  (verse 
26):  "And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread,"  etc.,  some  infer 
the  presence  of  Judas,  the  paschal  supper  not  being  yet  ended.* 
But  the  expression  may  mean  no  more  than  that,  while  yet  at  the 
table  Jesus  took  bread;  or  if  the  eating  was  that  of  the  lamb  of 
which  all  were  bound  to  partake,  the  peculiar  position  of  Judas 
would  justify  his  exclusion.  The  argument  from  the  Lord's  words 
(verse  27),  "Drink  ye  all  of  it,"  as  implying  that  Judas  was  to  drink 
with  the  others,  is  thus  stated  byAlford:  "It  is  on  all  accounts 
probable,  and  this  account  confirms  the  probability  that  Judas  was 
present  and  partook  of  both  parts  of  this  first  communion.  The  ex- 
pressions are  such  throughout  as  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that  the  same 
persons,  the  Twelve,  were  present."  But  Matthew  uses  the  same  ex- 
pression: "  All  ye  shall  be  offended  in  me  this  night"  (verse  31,  so 
verses  33  and  35),  when  only  eleven  were  present.  Perhaps  the  right 
explanation  of  the  words  "Drink  ye  all  of  it,"  may  be  that  given  by 
Buxtorf,^  who  says,  that  it  is  the  law  among  the  Jews,  that  all  who 
were  present  at  the  paschal  supper  should  drink  of  the  four  cups, 


1  Bengal;  ergo  Judas  aderat.    See  his  footnote. 

2  Cited  by  Bynaeus,  i.  624. 


492  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LOIiD.  [Part  YTl. 

whether  men  or  womeu,  adults  or  children;  and  especially  of  the 
fourth  or  last  cup. 

If  we  turn  to  the  narrative  of  John,  we  read  that,  after  Jesus  gave 
Judas  the  sop,  Satan  entered  into  him,  and  "  he  w^ent  immediately 
out."  Some  have  attempted  to  determine  from  tlie  mention  of  the 
''  sop  "  to  what  period  of  the  meal  this  event  is  to  be  referred.  But 
it  is  uncertain  whether  this  sop  —  xf/wfiiov —  literally  bit  or  morsel,  was 
of  flesh  or  bread. '  If  of  bread,  as  is  most  ]n-obable,  it  may  have  been 
given  immediately  after  the  second  cup  when  each  of  the  company, 
wrapping  a  piece  of  unleavened  bread  in  bitter  herbs,  dipped  it  in  the 
sauce  and  ate  it.  This  was  before  the  paschal  lamb  was  eaten.  But, 
as  both  the  bread  and  the  sauce  continued  on  the  table  to  the  end  of 
the  meal,  the  Lord  may  have  given  him  the  sop  at  a  later  period,  and 
no  definite  inference  can  be  drawn  from  this  circumstance.  Edersheim 
affirms  that  it  was  compounded  of  flesh  of  the  lamb,  unleavened 
bread,  and  bitter  herbs.  The  Lord  dipped  this  and  gave  it  to  Judas, 
after  this  the  supper  continued. 

If  Judas  went  out  immediately  after  receiving  the  sop,  and  yet 
was  present  at  the  Lord's  supper,  this  supper  must  have  been  prior  to 
the  dipping  of  the  sop  and  the  events  immediately  before  it.  But 
where  in  John's  narrative  can  it  be  placed?  According  to  Stier,  it 
may  find  place  between  verses  22  and  23.  But  there  is  the  greatest 
intrinsic  improbability,  that  after  Jesus  had  solemnly  announced  to 
them,  ' '  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  that  one  of  you  shall  betray 
me,"  and  "all  were  looking  on  one  another  doubting  of  whom  He 
spake,"  He  should  have  proceeded  at  once  to  the  institution  of  this 
holy  rite.  It  is  to  be  noted,  also,  that  in  announcing  the  treachery 
of  Judas  (verse  21),  "  He  was  troubled  in  spirit,"  but  that  after  the 
departure  of  Judas  (verse  31),  He  said,  '•  Now  is  the  Sou  of  Man  glo- 
rified, and  God  is  glorified  in  Him."  There  seems  to  l)e  in  John's 
narrative  no  possible  place  for  inserting  the  institution  of  the  eucha- 
rist  prior  to  the  departure  of  Judas.  Where,  after  that,  it  is  to  be 
placed  is  disputed.  Some  place  it  between  verses  80  and  31  (Ellicott, 
Luthardt,  Ebrard,  Langen,  McClel.);  some  between  verses  32  and  33; 
some  after  verse  33;  some  after  verse  38;  and  others  find  no  place 
wholly  satisfactory. 

Some  would  make  a  distinction  between  the  two  parts  of  the 
Lord's  supper,  an  interval  elapsing  between  the  consecration  of  the 
bread  and  that  of  the  wiue.^     Hence,  it  is  said  that  Judas  partook  of 


'  The  opinion  of  Orijren  and  others  that  this  was  the  bread  consecrated  to  be  the 
Lord's  body,  and  now  given  to  Judas,  is  refuted  by  Augustine.    See  Tholuck,  in  loco. 

*  Greswell,  iii.  181.  "The  bread  was  ordained  during  the  supper,  the  use  of  the 
cup  was  prescribed  after  it."    So  Westcott,  (ioJ^t.    a  Lapide  on  John  xiii.  2,  distinguishes 


PartVll.]      DID  JUDAS  PARTAKE  OF  THE  EUCHARIST  ?      493 

the  bread  but  went  out  before  the  distribution  of  the  cup.  There  is 
no  sound  basis  for  this  distinction. 

Upon  these  grounds,  we  conckxde  that  Judas  left  the  paschal  sup- 
per before  the  Lord  instituted  the  eucharist.  This  point  has  been 
connected  with  questions  respecting  the  spiritual  efficacy  of  the  sac- 
rament into  which  it  would  be  foreign  to  our  purpose  to  enter.  The 
weight  of  authority  down  to  recent  times  is  in  favor  of  the  view  that 
he  was  present  and  partook  with  the  other  apostles  of  the  bread  and 
wine.' 

Some  minor  questions  remain.  Did  the  Lord  partake  of  the  pas- 
chal supper?  Meyer  insists  that  the  words  (Luke  xxii.  17,  18)  "Take 
this  and  divide  it  among  yourselves,  for  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  not 
drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine  until  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  come," 
show  conclusively  that  He  did  not  Himself  drink  of  the  ciip,  which 
abstinence,  if  this  were  the  first  cup,  is  most  improbable;  and  he 
therefore  infers  that  those  words  which,  according  to  Matthew  (xxvi. 
29),  were  later  spoken,  are  erroneously  inserted  here.  But  it  is  by  no 
means  certain  that  the  words,  "Take  this  and  divide  it  among 
yourselves,"  do  exclude  His  own  participation  in  the  first  cup.  As 
Luke  alone  reports  His  words :  "With  desire  I  have  desired  to  eat 
this  passover  with  you,"  it  is  almost  certain  that  He  had  Himself  par- 
taken of  the  cup  ere  He  gave  it  to  the  disciples.^ 

Many  identify  Matt.  xxvi.  29  and  Mark  xiv.  25  with  Luke  xxii. 
18,  but  this  is  doubtful  ;  the  similarity  may  best  be  explained  by  sup- 
posing that  the  latter  was  spoken  in  reference  to  the  paschal  supper 
and  before  it  began,  the  former  in  reference  to  the  eucharistic  sup- 
per. He  kept  the  passover  with  His  disciples  according  to  the  law, 
and  thus  fulfilled  it;  and  He  would  no  more  partake  of  it  till  it  should 
be  observed  in  its  new  and  higher  form  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  He 
established  the  eucharistic  supper,  and  henceforth  would  no  more  par- 
take of  it  till  He  partook  of  it  new  in  the  kingdom  of  His  Father.     It 


three  suppers:  Ccerefnonialw,  the  eating  of  the  paechal  lamb;  CommMnis,  the  eating  of 
other  viands;  Coena  Eucharistice .  It  was  before  this  third  and  last  that  He  washed  their 
feet  —  not  an  ordinary  rite,  but  a  lotlo  sacratiientalis,  to  prepare  them  for  His  supper. 
The  Lord  twice  pointed  out  Judas  as  His  betrayer,  once  before  His  supper,  and  once 
after;  he  was  thus  present  at  it.    See  Maldonatus  on  Matt.  xxvi.  20. 

1  Wichelhaus  (257)  enumerates  as  its  defenders,  Cyprian,  Jerome,  Augustine,  Chry- 
eostom,  the  two  Cyrils,  Tlieodoret;  and  later,  Bellarmine,  Baronius,  Maldonatus,  Ger- 
hard, Beza,  Bucer,  Lightfoot,  Bengel.  Calvin  is  undecided;  Probabile  iamen  esse  non 
nego  Judani  affuisse.  It  is  affirmed  by  the  Lutherans  but  denied  by  the  Reformed.  Of 
the  later  commentators  affirming  it  are  McKnight,  Krafft,  Patritius,  Stier,  Alford,  Stroud, 
Caspari;  denying  it,  Meyer,  Tischeudorf,  Robinson,  Lichtenstein,  Friedlieb,  Bucher, 
Ebrard,  Lange,  Wieseler,  Riggenbach,  EUicott,  Langen,  Eders.,  M.  and  M.,  Woolsey, 
Keil;  undecided,  Farrar.     For  an  inleresiing  discussion  of  the  point,  see  Bynaeus,  i.  443. 

2  See  Alford  and  Keil,  in  loco. 


494  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  VII. 

may  be,  that  in  this  are  references  to  two  distinct  ordinances  in  the 
age  to  come  —  that  of  the  paschal  supper  for  the  Jews,  and  of  the 
Lord's  supper  for  the  Church. 

Did  the  Lord  partake  of  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine?  This 
is  a  point  which  the  accounts  of  the  Evangelists  do  not  enable  us  to 
decide.  It  was  answered  affirmatively  by  many  of  the  earlier  inter- 
preters :  Jerome,  Augustine,  Chrysostom,  and  others.  (See  Langen, 
188.) 

Evening   following  Thursday,  the  14th   Nisan, 
10-12  p.  M.  6th  April. 

After  the  supper  Peter  makes  protestations  of  fidelity,     Luke  xxii.  31-38. 
but  the  Lord  announces  to  him  that  before  the  cock  shall    John  xiii.  36-38. 
crow  he  shall  deny  Him.     He  teaches  the  disciples  of  the 
perils  that  await  them,  and  they  bring  to  Him  two  swords. 
He  proceeds  to  address  to  them  words  of  encouragement,     John  xiv.  1-31. 
and  answers  questions  of  Thomas  and  Philip.     He  adds 
the  promise  of  the  Comforter,  and  calling  upon  them  to 
arise  and  depart  with  Him,  He  continues  His  address  to 
them  as  they  stand  around  Him,  and  ends  with  a  prayer.    John  xv.,  xvi.,  xvii. 

Matthew  and  Mark  narrate  the  Lord's  announcement  to 
Peter  that  he  would  deny  Him,  as  if  it  took  place  after  they  had 
left  the  supper  room,  and  were  upon  their  way  to  the  Mount  of 
Olives;  Luke  and  John,  as  taking  place  before  they  had  left  the 
room.  Hence,  some  suppose  that  the  announcement  was  made 
before  they  left  it,  and  was  renewed  by  the  way ;  and  that  His 
declaration  respecting  the  crowing  of  the  cock  was  twice  spoken : 
once  in  the  room  of  the  supper,  as  recorded  by  Luke  and  John, 
and  once  after  they  had  left  it,  as  recorded  by  Matthew  and 
Mark.'  Others,  however,  who  agree  with  these  that  Jesus  twice 
uttered  the  prediction  respecting  the  denials  of  Peter,  would 
identify  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke;  but  the  last  not  narrating  in 
chronological  order.  (See  Edersheim,  ii.  5o4,  who  seems  to  say 
that  John  and  the  Synoptists  all  refer  to  the  same  warning,  and 
that  on  the  way  to  Gethsemane.)  This  identification  is  defended 
on  internal  grounds,  and  especially  that  the  Lord's  words  to 
Peter,  as  given  by  Luke,  ''  When  thou  art  converted,  strengthen 
thy  brethren,"  seem  plainly  to  point  to  His  words  respecting  all 
the  apostles,  as  given  by  Matthew  and  Mark,  "AH  ye  shall  be 


>  Meyer,  Alford,  Oosterzee,  Farrar,  Riddle,  Langen. 


Part  VI L]  WARNINGS   OF  PETER.  495 

offended  because  of  me  this  night."'  That  the  prediction  re- 
specting Peter's  denials  was  twice  spoken,  first  at  the  paschal  sup- 
per and  then  as  they  went  to  Gethsemane  (so  Lightfoot,  Patri- 
tius,  Townsend),  is  intrinsically  probable,  and  wholly  in  accord- 
ance with  Peter's  character.  Jesus  had  said  (John  xiii.  33)  that 
He  must  go  whither  His  disciples  could  not  follow  Him.  This 
leads  Peter  to  ask  whither  He  was  going,  and  why  he  could  not 
now  follow  Him;  and  he  adds:  '-I  will  lay  down  my  life  for 
thy  sake."  Now  the  Lord  declares  to  him  that  ei'e  the  cock 
crow,  he  shall  deny  Him  thrice.  (Keil  thinks  this  warning  of 
Peter  was  put  by  John  in  the  supper  room,  because  it  could  not 
well  be  inserted  later  between  chapters  xvii.  and  xviii.)  Later, 
perhaps  as  they  were  approaching  the  garden  of  Gethsemane, 
Jesus,  addressing  them  as  a  body,  declares  that  "  they  all  shall 
be  offended  in  Him  this  night"  (Matt.  xxvi.  31).  This  leads 
Peter  to  repeat  his  protestations  of  fidelity,  and  to  affirm  that 
though  all  others  should  be  offended,  yet  he  would  not.  The 
Lord  therefore  repeats,  and  more  emphatically:  "Verily  I  say 
unto  thee,  this  day,  even  in  this  night,  before  the  cock  crow 
twice,  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice  "  (Mark  xiv.  30). 

According  to  some,  the  Lord  three  times  predicted  Peter's 
denials,  once  as  given  by  John,  once  by  Luke,  and  once  by 
Matthew  and  Mark.''  Gn  the  other  hand,  some  make  but  one 
prediction,  which  John  and  Luke  relate  rightly  as  at  the  supper, 
and  Matthew  and  Mark  by  retrospection.^  Others  still  think  it 
"ightly  placed  l.)y  Matthew  and  Mark  while  on  the  way  to  Geth- 
semane.* 

The  words  the  "cock  shall  not  crow,"  may  be  understood 
as  referring,  not  to  a  literal  cock,  but  to  that  watch  of  the  night 
known  as  the  "cock-crowing"  (see  Mark  xiii.  35),  or  the  third 
watch,  that  from  12-3  a.  m.  "Within  the  time  of  cock  crow- 
ing," says  Lightfoot,  "  the  short  space  of  time  between  the  first 
and  second  crowing."  This  would  be  equivalent  to  saying 
before  early  dawn  thou  shalt  deny  me.  But  the  Lord  seems  to 
include  the  actual  crowing  of  the  cock,  as  the  event  shows  (Mark 


'  See  Bynaeus,  ii.  9. 

*  So  Augustine,  Greswell,  Grenville,  Sadler. 

3  Newcome,  Robinson,  Riggenbach,  Godet,  Nebe, 

♦  So  substantially  Patritius. 


496  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

xiv.  6G-7i).  The  second  crowing  was  probably  about  3  a.  m. 
That  Mark  should  say,  "  Before  the  cock  crow  twice  thou  shalt 
deny  me  thrice,"  while  the  other  Evangelists  say,  ''Before  the 
cock  crow  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice,"  makes  no  real  discrepancy. 
The  latter  speak  generally  of  the  cock-crowing  as  a  period  of 
time  within  which  the  three  denials  should  take  place;  Mark 
more  accurately  says,  that  during  this  period  the  cock  should 
not  crow  twice  ere  the  denials  were  made.'  The  assertion  that 
no  cocks  were  permitted  at  Jerusalem  has  no  basis.^ 

The  allusion  to  the  swords  is  found  only  in  Luke.  Some,  as 
Stier  and  Edersheim,  make  this  incident  to  have  taken  place  on  the 
way  to  Gethsemane,  and  just  before  the  entrance  into  it.  As, 
however,  it  seems  to  be  directly  connected  with  the  words  spoken 
to  Peter,  it  may  have  occun-ed  in  the  supper  room.^ 

After  thus  warning  His  disciples  of  the  twofold  danger  from 
invisible  temptation  and  external  violence,  and  encouraging  them 
to  trust  in  Him,  and  giving  them  the  promise  of  the  Comforter, 
He  offers  His  farewell  prayer,  the  hymn  is  sung — the  second  part 
of  the  Hallel,  Psalms  cxv.-cxviii.,  or,  as  some  say,  Psalm  cxxxvi. 
—  and  the  paschal  solemnity  is  ended.  We  may,  however,  con- 
nect this  hymn  with  His  words  (John  xiv.  31),  "Arise,  let  us 
go  hence,"  or  place  it  before  the  discourse.     (So  Eders.,  Farrar.) 

There  is  much  difference  of  opinion  as  the  place  where  these 
discourses  of  the  Lord  were  made.  Those  who  deny  this  supper 
m  John  (xiii.  2)  to  have  been  the  paschal  supper,  but  make  it  one 
previous  at  Bethany,  place  its  close  at  xiv.  31,  when  Jesus  arose  to 
go  to  Jerusalem.  Bynaeus  finds  three  distinct  -discourses:  the 
first,  John  xiii.,  at  the  supper  on  the  evening  of  Wednesday  pre- 
ceding the  paschal  supper;  the  second,  John  xiv.,  on  Thursday 
just  before  Jesus  left  Bethany  to  go  to  Jerusalem  to  the  paschal 
supper;  the  third,  John  xv.,  xvi.,  xvii.,  on  the  night  following 
the  paschal  supper. 

But  those  who  make  the  supper  in  John  the  paschal  supper, 
agree  that  the  Lord's  words  from  xiii.  31  to  xiv.  31  were  spoken 
in  the  upper  room  ;  the  question  is  as  to  chapters  xv.,  xvi.,  and 


>  See  Friodlieb,  Archaol.,  79;  Greswell,  iii.  211. 

-  See  Alford  on  Matt.  xsvi.  34.    "  It  is  certain  that  there  were  cocks  at  Jerusalem 
^8  well  as  at  other  places."    Liglitfoot;  Eders.,  ii.  537,  nota 
*  So  Da  Costa,  Ebrard,  Oosterzee,  Farrar,  Godet. 


Fart    VII.]  JESUS   GOES   TO   GETHSEMANE.  497 

xvii.  Many  understand  the  words  "Arise,  let  us  go  hence,"  as 
showing  that  He  then  left  the  upper  room  to  go  to  Gethsemane, 
and  that  the  following  discourse  and  the  prayer  were  on  the 
way.  But  to  this  there  are  some  obvious  objections.  After  His 
words,  "  Arise,  let  us  go  hence,"  no  change  of  place  is  mentioned 
till  the  prayer  is  ended.  Whether  the  statement  of  John  xviii. 
1,  "  "When  Jesus  had  spoken  these  words.  He  went  forth  over  the 
brook  Cedron,"  refers  to  His  departure  from  the  upper  room,  or 
departure  from  the  city,  is  in  dispute.  But  if  to  the  former,  it 
is  not  probable  that  His  discourse  was  spoken  while  they  were 
walking,  and  still  less  His  prayer.  Godet  thinks  of  some  "  re- 
tired spot  on  the  slope  which  descends  into  the  valley  of  the 
Cedron."  Westcott  makes  this  discourse  and  prayer  to  have 
been  spoken  in  the  temple.  (See  contra,  Eders.,  ii.  528,  note.) 
The  more  general  belief  is  that  the  Lord  arose  from  the  table 
with  the  apostles,  but  remained  in  the  room,  and  all  standing, 
He   continued  His  discourse,  and  ended  it  with  the  prayer.* 

Night  following  Thursday,  14th  Nisan,  6th  April. 

After  His  prayer  is  ended,  Jesus  goes  with  His  disci-    John  xviii.  1,  2. 
pies  over  the  brook  Cedron  (Kidron)  to  the  garden  of  Geth-    Matt.  xxvi.  30-36. 
semane,  where   He  awaits  the  coming  of  Judas.     This    Luke  xxii.  39. 
apostate,  after  leaving  the  supper  room,  had  gone  to  the    Mark  xiv.  26-32. 
priests,  and  with  them  made  arrangement  for  the  immedi-    John  xviii.  3. 
ate  arrest  of  the  Lord.  Coming  to  the  garden,  Jesus  takes 
with  Him  Peter  and  James  and  John,  and  retires  with  them    Matt.  xxvi.  37^6. 
to  a  secluded  spot.     Here  He  begins  to  be  heavy  with  sor-    Mark  xiv.  33Hi2. 
row,  and,  leaving  the  three,  goes  alone  to  pray.     Return-    Luke  xxii.  40-46. 
ing,  He  finds  them  asleep.     Leaving  them.  He  again  prays 
and  in  His  agony  sweats  a  bloody  sweat,  but  is  strength- 
ened by  an  angel     Again  returning  to  the  three  disciples, 
He  finds  them  asleep.     He  goes  a  third  time  and  prays, 
and  returning,  bids  them  sleep  on,  but  soon  announces 
the  approach  of  Judas. 

The  hour  when  Jesus  left  the  supper  room  to  go  to  Geth- 
semane cannot  be  exactly  determined.  Lichtenstein  (411)  puts 
it  at  midnight:  first,  because  usually  at  this  hour  the  supper  was 
ended;  second,  because  if  lie  had  left  earlier,  there  would  have 

»  So  Meyer,  Stier,  Alford,  Norton,  Tholuck,  Ellicott,  Luthardt,  Edersheim,  Weiss; 
that  it  was  spoken  on  the  way,  LanijeTi.  I.nnsre,  Da  Costa,  Ebrard,  Patritins,  Godet. 


498  THE    LIFE    OF    OUR   LORD.  [Part  VII. 

been  too  great  delay  at  Gethsemane.  Greswell  puts  it  between 
eleven  and  twelve  o'clock;  Morrison  at  nine  or  ten;  Fairbairnat 
eigbt  or  nine;  Jarvis  at  eight.  Supposing  the  paschal  supper  to 
have  commenced  soon  after  6  p.  m.  or  sundown,  the  several  inci- 
dents of  the  feast  and  the  Lord's  discourse  and  prayer  must  have 
occupied  them  till  near  midnight.  The  only  datura  of  time 
bearing  on  it  is  the  crowing  of  the  cock  (Mark  xiv.  68,  72), 
and  this  gives  no  definite  result. 

The  traditional  site  of  the  upper  room  where  the  paschal  sup 
per  was  eaten  —  the  C(Pnacuk;m  —  is  on  the  western  hill  gener- 
ally known  as  Mt.  Zion,  and  near  the  traditional  house  of  Caia- 
phas.  It  is  a  room  in  the  mosque  known  as  Neby  Daud,  and  is 
described  by  Robinson  (i.  241)  as  "a  large,  dreary  room  of  stone, 
fifty  or  sixty  feet  long  by  some  thirty  in  width.  At  the  east  end 
is  a  small  niche  in  the  wall,  which  the  Christians  use  at  certain 
seasons  as  an  altar,  and  celebrate  mass."  The  building  in  which 
it  is,  was  formerly  a  Christian  Church,  and  is  of  very  high  anti- 
quity, and  was  early  held  to  be  the  place  where  the  apostles  were 
assembled  at  Pentecost  when  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  upon 
them.  As  it  is  probable  that  they  were  assembled  in  the  same 
room  where  the  Lord's  supper  was  instituted,  the  tradition,  at 
least  as  regards  the  site,  seems  quite  credible.  It  is  said  by 
Epiphanius  (A.  D  450)  that  this  building  escaped  destruction  by 
Titus,  and  was  used  by  the  Christians  after  their  return  to  Jeru- 
salem from  Pella.  Anotlier  tradition,  however,  put  the  Coenac- 
ulum  on  the  side  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  near  the  Church  of  the 
Virgin  Mary.  Barclay  objects  to  the  traditional  site  on  the 
ground  that  when  Peter  and  John  (Luke  xsii.  10)  entered  the 
city  from  Bethany  to  prepare  for  the  paschal  supper,  they  would 
necessarily  have  gone  a  long  way  before  meeting  the  man  bear- 
ing the  pitcher  of  water,  and  prefers  the  northeastern  brow  of 
Mt.  Zion  and  nearer  Gethsemane;  and  Greswell  supposes  it  to 
have  been  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  city.  Wherever  it  was,  it 
could  have  been  but  a  little  distance  from  the  garden.'  "We 
cannot  be  far  wrong  if  we  suppose  the  Lord  to  have  reached 
Gethsemane  about  midnight. 


'  As  to  the  traditional  claims  of   the  "  Upper  Room,"  see  Williams,  H.  C,  ii.  507; 
Survey  of  Western  Pal.,  419^ 


Part  VI L]  GETHSEMANE,    WHERE?  499 

Gethsemane,  "valley  of  oil,"  or  "oil  press,"  to  which  the 
Lord  went,  was  a  place  He  was  accustomed  to  visit  (John  xviii. 
2),  and  a  little  way  out  of  the  city.  The  designation  x<^piov, 
means  a  place  enclosed  —  a  farm.  It  is  not  mentioned  by  John 
as  Gethsemane,  but  as  "a  garden."  Luke  speaks  only  of  His 
going  to  the  Mount  of  Olives.  It  seems  to  have  been  an  olive 
orchard,  and  not  connected  with  any  private  residence.  If,  how- 
ever, this  was  a  private  garden,  still,  as  at  the  feasts  all  the  houses 
and  gardens  were  thrown  open  to  the  public,  Jesus  could  visit  it 
at  this  time  without  hindrance  or  attracting  to  Himself  any 
special  attention.  Greswell  hints  that  the  family  of  Lazarus 
might  have  had  possessions  there,  and  Meyer  infers  that  its  owner 
must  have  been  friendly  to  Jesus.  From  a  comparison  of 
Luke  xxi.  .37  with  xxii.  39,  it  appears  that  the  Lord  had  spent' 
some  part  of  the  previous  nights  there,  perhaps  alone  in  prayer. 

Whether  the  site  of  the  modern  Gethsemane  is  to  be  identi- 
fied with  the  ancient  garden  is  questioned,  as  the  Evangelists  do 
not  say  on  what  part  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  it  lay.  It  is  first 
mentioned  by  Eusebius  as  at  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  after- 
ward more  definitely  by  Jerome  as  at  the  foot  of  the  Mount.' 
Several  of  the  most  recent  inquirers  are  disposed  to  deny  the 
identification.  Thomson  (ii.  483)  says:  "  The  position  is  too  near 
the  city,  and  so  close  to  what  must  have  always  been  the  great 
thoroughfare  eastward,  that  our  Lord  would  scarcely  have 
selected  it  for  retirement  on  that  dangerous  and  dismal  night." 
He  finds  a  better  site  several  hundred  yards  to  the  northeast  on 
the  Moimt  of  Olives.  Weiss  (iii.  320)  remarks:  "The  name 
applies  to  a  remote  part  of  the  mountain  where  an  oil  press  was 
situated,  m<)st  likely  entirely  forsaken,  or  at  least  unemployed." 
Barclay  (63)  thinks  it  evident  that  the  present  enclosure,  from 
its  narrow  dimensions,  can  occupy  only  in  part  the  site  of  the 
ancient  garden,  and  finds  a  better  position  higher  up  in  the  val- 
ley. Stanley  (415)  is  undecided.  But  whether  the  present  gar- 
den occupies  precisely  the  old  site  or  not,  it  is  certain  that  it 
must  be  near  it.  It  lies  a  little  east  of  the  valley  of  the  Kidron, 
at  the  intersection  of  two  paths,  both  leading  in  different  direc- 
tions over  the  Mount  of  Olives.     Descending  from  St.  Stephen's 

1  Eobiusou.i.  235, 


500  THE   LIFE   OP   OUR   LORD.  [Part  VII. 

gate  into  the,  valley  and  crossing  a  bridge,  it  is  easily  reached, 
being  distant  but  nine  or  ten  rods  from  the  bridge.  Formerly, 
it  was  unenclosed,  but  recently  the  Latins  have  built  a  high  wall 
around  it.  There  are  within  eight  venerable  olive  trees,  undoubt- 
edly of  great  age,  their  trunks  much  decayed,  but  their  branches 
flourishing.  "  The  most  venerable  of  their  race  on  the  face  of 
the  earth,"  says  Stanley,  "  tlieir  gnarled  trunks  and  scanty  foli- 
age will  always  be  regarded  as  the  most  affecting  of  the  sacred 
memorials  in  or  about  Jerusalem."  The  Greeks,  envious  of  the 
Latins,  have  recently  enclosed  a  piece  of  ground  a  little  noi'th 
beside  the  Virgin's  tomb,  and  contend  that  this  is  the  true 
garden.' 

The  words  of  Jesus  at  the  paschal  supper  (John  xiii.  27), 
"  That  thou  doest,  do  quickly,'"  forced  Judas  to  do  at  once  what 
he  had  apparently  not  designed  to  do  till  the  feast  was  over. 
Perhaps  he  feared  that  if  the  arrest  was  not  made  the  same  night, 
Jesus  would  the  next  day  leave  the  city.  Of  the  movements  of 
Judas  after  he  left  the  supper,  none  of  the  Evangelists  give  us  an 
account  till  he  reappears  at  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  ;  but  we  can 
readily  picture  them  to  ourselves  in  their  outline.  Going  imme- 
diately to  Caiaphas,  or  to  some  other  leading  member  of  the  San- 
hedrin,  he  informs  him  where  Jesus  is,  and  announces  that  he  is 
ready  to  fulfill  his  compact  and  at  once  to  make  the  arrest.  It 
was  not,  as  we  have  seen,  the  intention  to  arrest  Him  during  the 
feast  lest  there  should  be  a  popular  tumult  (Matt.  xxvi.  5);  but 
now  that  an  opportunity  offered  of  seizing  Him  secretly  at  dead 
of  night  when  all  were  asleep  or  engaged  at  the  paschal  meal, 
and  therefore  without  danger  of  interference  or  uproar.  His 
enemies  could  not  hesitate.  Once  in  their  hands,  the  rest  was 
easy.  A  hasty  trial,  a  prejudged  condemnation,  an  immediate 
execution,  and  the  hated  Prophet  of  Galilee  was  forever  removed 
out  of  their  way.  All,  perhaps,  might  be  done  by  the  hour  of 
morning  prayer  and  sacrifice.'  With  great  despatch  all  the 
necessary  arrangements  are  made.  Some  soldiers  the  Sanhe- 
drin  had  under  its  own  direction,  the  guards  of  the  temple  com- 


1  Porter,  i.  177;  Baedeker,  216. 

2  It  is  a  strange  fancy  of  Greswell  that  those  words  were  spoken  to  Satan  who 
had  entered  into  Judas. 

2  Lichtenstein,  414. 


Part  VII.]  EVENTS   IN  GETHSEMANE.  501 

manded  by  "the  captains  of  the  temple,"  or,  as  translated  by 
Campbell,  "oflBcers  of  the  temple  guard;'"  and  to  these  they  added 
some  of  their  own  servants  armed  with  staves.  But  they  must 
be  attended  by  Roman  soldiers  in  case  a  disturbance  should 
arise;  and  to  this  end  Pilate  was  persuaded  to  place  at  their 
command  the  cohort,  or  a  part  of  it,  under  its  captain,  ;^f  Amp;;^oc, 
that  during  the  feast  was  stationed  at  Fort  Antonia  for  the 
preservation  of  order.-  Some  of  the  chief  priests  and  elders 
were  also  themselves  to  be  present,  to  direct  the  proceedings, 
and  if  necessary,  to  control  the  people.^  The  soldiers,  or  some 
portion  of  them,  were  to  be  provided  with  lanterns  and  torches, 
probably  to  search  the  garden  if  any  attempt  was  made  to  escape. 
That  at  this  time  the  moon  was  at  the  full,  presents  no  objection. 
"  They  would,"  says  Hackett  (140),  "  need  lanterns  and  torches, 
even  in  a  clear  night  and  under  a  brilliant  moon,  because  the 
western  side  of  Olivet  abounds  in  deserted  tombs  and  caves." 
It  is  possible  that  they  thought  to  surprise  Him  asleep.  It  was 
agreed  that  Judas  should  precede  the  others,  and,  approaching 
Him  in  a  friendly  way,  kiss  Him,  and  thus  make  Him  known. 
This  indicates  that  no  resistance  was  anticipated. 

Of  the  events  at  Gethsemane  prior  to  the  arrival  of  Judas, 
John  says  nothing.  Luke  is  brief,  and,  omitting  the  choice  of 
the  three  apostles  to  accompany  Jesus,  mentions  but  one  prayer. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  alone  mentions  tlie  bloody  sweat  and  the 
presence  of  the  angel  (xxii.  40-46).  In  Matthew  and  Mark  we 
find  the  fullest  details. 

Whether  all  the  apostles  entered, the  garden  does  not  appear; 
but  if  so,  all  except  Peter,  James,  and  John,  remained  near  the 
entrance.  How  long  time  He  was  with  the  three  in  the  recesses 
of  the  garden  can  but  be  conjectured,  for  the  words  given  by 
Matthew  (xxvi.  40),  "  What,  could  ye  not  watch  with  me  one 
hour  ?  "  do  not  imply,  as  said  by  Greswell,  that  this  was  the 
time  actually  occupied  in  His  prayer,  but  are  a  proverbial  expres- 


1  Luke  xxii.  52,  probably  a  police  force;  Joseph.,  War,  vi.  5.  13;  Eders.,  Temple 
Services,  119. 

2  John  sviii.  .3  and  12.  See  Meyer,  in  loco.  Nebe  (268)  thinks  that  this  was  not 
done  by  Pilate,  but  by  the  chiliarch  on  his  own  responsibility.  Bilumlein  questions 
whether  any  Roman  soldiers  were  present.  The  poiut^  what  part  Pilate  had  in  the 
arrest,  will  be  examined  later. 

*  Luke  xxii.  52.     Lichtenstein,  415. 


502  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  VII. 

sion  denoting  a  brief  interval.  As  Luke  alone  mentions  the 
appearing  of  the  angel,  it  is  not  certain  where  this  should  find 
place  in  Matthew's  account.  Some  place  it  between  the  first 
and  second  prayer  to  strengthen  Him  for  that  more  terrible 
struggle  to  come  when  He  sweat  drops  of  blood.'  Others 
make  the  agony  and  bloody  sweat  to  have  taken  place  before  the 
appearance  of  the  angel,  and  to  have  been  its  occasion,  although 
narrated  after  it.  That  the  grief  and  heaviness  were  greatest 
during  the  first  prayer,  may  be  inferred  from  Matthew  and  Mark. 
The  language  of  Luke  does  not  permit  us  to  think  of  sweat 
falling  in  large,  heavy  drops  like  blood,  but  of  sweat  mingled 
with  blood. ^ 

The  Lord's  words  to  the  three  apostles  after  His  last  return 
to  them  (Matt.  xxvi.  45;  so  Mark),  "Sleep  on  now  and  take 
your  rest,"  are  understood  by  some  as  giving  them  permission 
and  opportunity  to  sleep,  because  the  hour  of  His  agony  was  past 
and  the  need  of  their  help.  "  The  obvious  objection  to  this 
explanation  is  that  in  the  same  breath  He  tells  them  to  awake; 
but  even  this  is  not  unnatural,  if  taken  as  a  sort  of  after-thought 
suggested  by  the  sight  or  sound  of  the  approaching  enemy."  ^ 
Others  understand  them  as  ironically  spoken. ''  Others  still,  as 
interrogatively  :  "  Sleep  ye  on  still  and  take  ye  your  rest  ?  "  * 
The  first  explanation  is  to  be  preferred.  "The  former  words," 
says  Ellicott,  "were  rather  in  the  accents  of  a  pensive  contem- 
plation—  the  latter  in  the  tones  of  exhortation  and  command." 
It  was  the  sudden  appearance  of  Judas  and  his  band  that  caused 
the  words,  "  Rise,  let  us  be  going;  behold,  he  is  at  hand  that 
doth  betray  me,"  and  explain  their  apparent  abruptness.' 
Hackett  (254)  connects  them  with  the  local  position  of  the  gar- 
den from  which  Jesus  could  survey  at  a  glance  the  entire  length 
of  the  eastern  wall  and  the  slope  of  the  hill  toward  the  valley. 


1  Meyer,  Alford,  Keil. 

2  Meyer,  Alford,  DeWette.  For  cases  having  points  of  similarity,  see  Stroud  on 
Death  of  Christ,  85,  and  note  iii.  By  W.  and  H.,  verses  43  and  44  in  Luke  xxii.  are 
bracketed. 

3  Alexander.    See  Lichtenstein,  414.  *  Calvin,  Campbell,  Meyer. 

6  Greswell,  iii.  194;  Robinson,  Ear.,  151.  The  former  would  refer  Luke  xxii.  45, 
not  to  the  three  disciples,  but  to  the  eight  whom  lie  found  also  asleep  near  the  entrance 
of  the  garden.    There  seem8«o  basis  for  this. 

^  See  Mark  xiv.  41:  "It  is  enough,  the  hour  is  come,"  i.  #.,  "Ye  have  slept 
enough." 


Part  VII.]  THE  lord's  arrest.  503 

"  It  is  not  improbable  tliat  His  watchful  eyes  at  that  moment 
caught  sight  of  Judas  and  his  accomplices  as  they  issued  from 
one  of  the  eastern  gates,  or  turned  round  the  northern  or  south- 
ern corner  of  the  walls  in  order  to  descend  into  the  valley." 

Night  following  Thursday,  the  14th  Nisan,  Gth  April. 

Upon  the  arrival  of  Judas  and  those  with  him,  Jesus,     John  xviii.  .3-13. 
accompanied  by  the  apostles,  goes  forth  from  the  gar-    Matt.  xxvi.  47-56. 
den  to  meet  him.     Judas,  coming  forward  before  the    Mark  xiv.  43-52. 
others,  kisses  Him  as  a  sign  to  them.      Addressing  Judas    Luke  xxii.  47,  48. 
with  the  words,  "  Betrayest  thou  the  Son  of  man  with 
a  kiss,"  He  advances  to  the  multitude  and  demands  of 
them  whom   they  seek.       At    their  reply,    "Jesus  of 
Nazareth,"  He  answers,  "  I  am  He,"  and  they  go  hack- 
ward  and  fall  to  the  ground.     Again  He  asks  the  same 
question,   and  receives  the  same    reply.     He  now  re- 
quests that  the  apostles  may  go  free.     As  they  proceed    Luke  xxii.  49-53. 
to  take  and  bind  Him,  Peter  smites  a  servant  of  the 
high  priest,  but  the  Lord  heals  the  wound.     Beholding 
their   Master  in  the  power    of    His    enemies,  all    the 
apostles  forsake  Him  and  flee,  and  also  a  young  man 
who  had  followed  Him.     lie  reproaches  the  multitude 
that  they  had  come  to  arrest  Him  as  a  thief. 

The  time  spent  in  the  garden  was  probably  more  than 
an  hour,  so  that,  if  they  entered  it  an  hour  before  midnight, 
it  was  about  midnight  when  Judas  came.'  Some  suppose 
that  Judas  with  his  band  must  first  have  gone  to  the  room  of 
the  supper,  and  then,  not  finding  the  Lord,  to  the  garden  (so 
Stroud,  Edersheim).  The  Lord  seems  to  have  met  him  near  the 
entrance  of  the  garden,  whether  without  it  or  within  it,  is  not 
certain.  ''He  went  forth"  (John  xviii.  4);  "out  of  the  gar- 
den" (Meyer);  "out  of  the  circle  of  the  disciples"  (Lange); 
"from  the  shade  of  the  trees  into  the  moonlight"  (Alford); 
"from  the  bottom  of  the  garden  to  the  front  part  of  it"  (Tho- 
luck).  The  matter  is  unimportant.  According  to  his  arrange- 
ment with  the  priests,  Judas,  seeing  the  Lord  standing  with 
the  disciples,  leaves  those  that  accompanied  him  a  little 
behind,  and  coming  forward  salutes  Him  with  the  usual 
salutation,  and  kisses  Him.  To  this  Jesus  replies,  "Friend, 
wherefore  art  thou  come?"  (R.  V.,  "Friend,  do  that  for  which 


1  Jones,  Notes,  331,  makes  the  arrest  to  have  been  iihoiit  10  p.  m.,  and  Jesus  taken 
to  Caiaphas  about  11  p.  m;  Stroud,  the  arrest  at  11:  McClellan  about  midnight. 


504  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR   LORD.  [Part  VII. 

thou  art  come,"  Matt.  xxvi.  50).  "  Betrayest  thou  the  Son  of 
man  with  a  kiss  ?  "  (Luke  xxii.  48).  Appalled  at  these  words, 
Judas  steps  backward,  and  Jesus  goes  toward  the  multitude, 
who  were  watching  what  was  taking  place,  and  who,  beholding 
Him  advance,  await  His  approach.  It  may  be  that  Judas  had 
advanced  so  far  before  his  companions  that  he  was  not  seen  by 
them  to  kiss  the  Lord,  and  that  they  were  still  awaiting  the 
sign.  He  asks,  "Whom  seek  ye?"  They  reply,  "Jesus  of 
Nazareth."  His  words,  "  I  am  He,"  spoken  with  the  majesty  that 
became  the  Son  of  God,  so  overawed  them  that  they  went  back- 
ward and  fell  to  the  ground.  After  a  like  question  and  reply, 
He  requests  them  to  let  the  apostles  go  free,  thus  implying  His 
own  willingness  to  be  taken ;  and  they,  thus  emboldened,  now 
lay  hands  upon  Him.  At  this  moment  Peter  draws  his  sword 
and  smites  one  of  the  band.  Jesus  orders  him  to  put  up  his 
sword,  and  declares  that  He  gives  Himself  up  to  them  volun- 
tarily, and  that,  if  He  needed  help,  His  Father  would  send  Him 
legions  of  angels.  The  healing  of  the  servant's  ear  is  mentioned 
only  by  Luke  (xxii.  51).  He  now  addresses  a  few  words  to  the 
chief  priests  and  captains  and  elders,  who  had  probably  to  this 
time  been  standing  behind  the  soldiers,  and  now  came  forward; 
and,  as  He  finished,  the  apostles,  seeing  Him  wholly  in  the 
power  of  His  enemies,  forsook  Him  and  fled.  It  does  not  ap- 
pear that  there  was  any  design  to  arrest  them.  If  their  Master 
was  removed  out  of  the  way,  the  Sanhedrin  doubtless  thought 
that  they  would  soon  sink  into  obscurity.  There  was  no  attempt 
to  seize  them,  and  in  the  darkness  and  confusion  they  could 
easily  escape.  Peter  and  John,  however,  continued  waiting  near 
by,  watching  the  progress  of  events.  The  incident  of  the  young 
man  "having  a  linen  cloth  cast  about  his  naked  body,"  is 
mentioned  only  by  Mark  (xiv.  51,  52).  From  the  linen  cloth 
or  cloak,  Lightfoot  infers  that  he  was  a  religious  ascetic,  and 
not  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  but  a  casual  looker-on.  Lichtenstein 
(395)  and  many  make  him  to  have  been  the  Evangelist  Mark 
himself,  and  son  of  the  man  at  whose  house  Jesus  ate  the 
paschal  supper,  and  thus  having  a  personal  interest  in  the  nar- 
rative; others,  John;  others,  James  the  Just.' 


1  See  Alexander,  in  loco.    The  matter  is  elaborately  discussed  by  Byiiaeus,  ii.  228; 
Edersheim,  ii.  545,  spealcs  as  if  it  were  Marli  witiiout  doubt. 


Part  VIL]  THE   LORD   LED   TO   ANNAS.  605 

The  circumstances  connected  with  the  arrest  are  put  by  some 
ni  another  order,  in  which  the  incidents  narrated  by  John  (xviii. 
4-9),  the  going  forth  of  Jesus  to  the  multitude,  His  questions  to 
them,  and  their  prostration,  all  took  place  before  Judas  ap- 
proached Him  to  kiss  Him.'  According  to  Stier  (vii.  277), 
Judas  was  with  the  band,  but  stood  irresolute  as  the  Lord  came  to 
meet  them.  He  with  the  others  fell  to  the  ground,  but,  reviv- 
ing, went  forward  to  give  the  kiss.  But  why  give  the  kiss  to 
make  Jesus  known,  when  He  already  avowedly  stood  before 
them  ?  It  was  not  needed  as  a  sign.  Stier  affirms  that  it 
was  given  in  "  the  devilish  spirit  to  maintain  his  consistency  and 
redeem  his  word."  This  may  be  so,  but  the  order  before  given 
is  more  probable.^ 

Friday  Morning,  15th  Nisan,  7th  April. 

From  the  garden  Jesus  is  taken  first  to  the  house  of  John  xviii.  13-15. 
Annas,   and  after  a  brief  delay  here,  to  the  palace 

of  Caiaphas,  the  high  priest;  Peter  and  John  follow-  Matt.  xxvi.  57,  58. 

ing  Him.     Here,  while  the  council  is  assembling,  He  Makk  xiv.  .5,3,  54. 

is  subjected  to  a  preliminary  examination  by  Caiaphas  Luke  xxil.  .54,  55. 

respecting  His  disciples  and  doctrine.     The  council  John  xviii.  19-24. 

having  assembled,   He  is  put  on  trial.     As  the  wit-  Matt.  xxvi.  .59-66. 

nesses  disagree  and  no  charge  can  be  proved  against  Mark  xiv.  55-64. 
Him,  He  is  adjured  by  Caiaphas  to  tell  whether  He 

be  the  Christ.     Upon  His  confession  He  is  condemned  Matt.  xxvi.  69-75. 

as  guilty  of  blasphemy.  During  this  period,  Peter,  Mark  xiv.  66-72. 
who  had  followed  Him  with  John  to  the  high  priest's  Luke  xxii.  56-62. 
palace,  there  denies  Him,  and,  reminded  of  His  words    John  xviii.  15-18. 

by  the  crowing  of  the  cock,  goes  out  to  weep.  John  xviii.  25-27. 

The  general  order  of  events  immediately  following  the  arrest 
is  plain:  1.  The  Lord  is  led  to  Annas.  2.  He  is  sent  by  Annas 
to  Caiaphas  the  high  priest.  3.  He  is  brought  before  the  Sanhe- 
drin,  tried  and  condemned.  4.  During  this  period  Peter  three 
times  denies  the  Lord.  But  there  are  some  points  of  contro- 
versy: 1.  Before  whom,  Annas  or  Caiaphas,  was  the  first  exam- 
ination held  ?      2.  What  was  the  nature  of  this  examination? 

3.  The  competence  of  the  court  and  the  legality  of  the  trial. 

4.  When  and  where  did  the  denials  of  Peter  take  place? 

1.  Before  whom,  Annas  or  Caiaphas,  was  the  first  examinatioji  held? 
It  is  said  by  Matthew  (xxvi.  57)  that  after  the  Lord's  arrest  "they 

'  So  Robinson,  Alford,  Stier. 

2  So  Lichtenstein,  Kraft,  Ebrard,  Luthardt,  Meyer,  Patritius. 
2?. 


500  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

led  Him  away  to  Caiaphas  the  high  priest."  Mark  and  Luke  say 
only  that  He  was  led  to  the  high  priest,  without  naming  him.  John 
(xviii.  13)  alone  mentions  that  "He  was  led  to  Annas  first,"  and  was 
afterward  sent  by  him  to  Caiaphas,  and  from  Caiaphas  was  taken 
to  the  pra^torium  or  hall  of  judgment  (verse  28).  This  Evangelist 
mentions  no  hearing  before  the  Sanhedrin  unless  it  be  this  one  con- 
ducted by  the  high  priest  (verses  19-23).  At  first  view,  it  seems 
that  Caiaphas,  not  Annas,  must  be  meant  (verse  19:  "The  high 
priest  asked,"  etc.).  The  ground  assigned  by  John  for  taking  Him  to 
Annas  is  that  he  "  was  father-in-law  to  Caiaphas,  which  was  the  high 
priest  that  same  year."  Caiaphas  is  again  called  the  high  priest, 
verse  24,  and  it  would  seem  that  the  palace  of  the  high  priest  to 
which  John  and  Peter  went  following  the  Lord,  must  have  been  that 
of  Caiaphas,  and  that  the  informal  examination  that  then  took  place, 
was  by  him ;  and  this  was  the  understanding  of  the  translators  of 
the  A.  v.,  for  they  translate  verse  24,  "  Now  Annas  had  sent  Him 
bound  unto  Caiuplias  the  high  priest."  If  this  rendering  be  kept,  it 
would  show  that  this  sending  was  before  the  examination  mentioned 
(verses  19-23),  and  that  this  examination  was  by  Caiaphas. 

But  it  is  said  that  verse  24  cannot  be  rendered  "had  sent" 
dw^a-TeiXei' — it  must  be  rendered  as  in  the  R.  V.,  "sent;"  "Annas 
sent  Him  bound."  If  so  understood,  the  examination  was  by 
Annas,  and  before  he  sent  the  Lord  to  Caiaphas.  But  this  is  a  point 
upon  which  tlie  grammarians  differ,'  and  one  which  we  are  not  called 
upon  to  discuss.  Many  look  upon  verse  24  in  John's  narrative  as 
parenthetical.  Thus  it  is  said  byEdersheim:  "It  is  an  intercalated 
notice,  referring  to  what  had  been  previously  recorded  in  verses 
15-23;"  and  by  Greswell:  "A  notice  parenthetically  inserted."  In 
this  case  nothing  is  told  us  of  the  interview  between  Annas  and  the 
Lord;  all  tliat  is  recorded  is  the  informal  examination  in  the  house 
of  Caiaphas.^ 

If,  then,  as  said  by  Winer,  the  meaning  of  this  statement  "cannot 
be  decided  on  grammatical  grounds,"  we  must  seek  help  by  con- 
sidering the  attendant  circumstances,  and  first  those  connected  with 
the  person  and  residence  of  Annas. 


1  Winer,  Gram.,  trans.  2~r),  leaves  the  point  undecided;  so  Butlmann,  New  Test. 
Gram.,  173.  In  favor  of  rendering  "had  sent,"  De  Wette,  Thohick,  Robinson,  Greswell, 
Norton,  Edersheim,  Krafft,  Gardiner;  for  the  rendering  "sent,"  Meyer,  Godet,  Luthardt, 
Ellicott,  Westcott,  Riddle,  Nebe;  for  a  full  argument  on  the  aorist  here  defending  its  use 
as  pluperfect,  see  Gardiner  in  Joiirntd  of  Bib.  Lit.,  June  1886,  45  tl.;  also  Baumleiu, 
Keil,  in  loco;  contra,  Meyer,  in  loco,  Dwight,  additional  note  to  Godet. 

2  For  this  solution,  beside  the  older  harmonists  and  commentators,  Lightfoot, 
Lardner,  Bynaeus,  Grotius;  of  the  later,  Robinson,  Greswell,  Krafft,  De  Costa,  Norton, 
Friedlieb,  Biiumlein,  Edersheim,  Langen. 


f'art  VII.]     THE  lord's  first  examination.  507 

"Why  was  the  Lord  taken  to  Annas?  It  is  often  said  that  he  was 
the  president  or  vice-president  of  the  Sanhedrin '  and  so  had  a 
legal  right  to  examine  Him.  Bnt  John  (xviii.  13)  seems  to  assign 
the  real  cause  when  he  says  that  he  was  father-in-law  to  Caia- 
phas  (so  Ellicott,  333,  note).  It  is  apparent  from  Josephus  (Antiq., 
XX.  9.  1),  for  his  name  occurs  in  the  Gospels  only  here  and  in  Luke 
iii.  3,  that  he  was  a  man  of  very  great  influence ;  and  probably  may 
have  been  in  fact,  though  not  in  name,  the  ecclesiastical  head  of 
the  nation.  It  is  in  this  personal  reputation  and  authority  rather 
than  in  any  official  position,  that  we  find  the  explanation  of  the 
fact  that  the  Lord  was  taken  to  him  first.  As  the  former  high  priest, 
as  father-in-law  of  the  present  high  priest,  as  an  experienced  and 
able  counsellor,  and  deeply  interested  in  this  matter,  a  wish  on  his 
part  to  see  privately  so  noted  a  man,  aside  from  other  reasons, 
would  sufficiently  explain  why  the  Lord  was  led  before  him  (Weiss, 
iii.  333).  But  if  He  was  examined  by  him,  Annas  is  called  "  the  high 
priest,"  for  "  the  high  priest  asked  Jesus  of  His  discii^les."  It  seems 
scarcely  possible  that  the  Evangelist  should  make  such  repeated  men- 
tion of  the  high  priesthood  of  Caiaphas,  emphasizing  his  official  posi- 
tion, and  yet  should  put  the  only  examination  of  the  Lord  he  men- 
tions before  Annas,  whose  only  claim  to  this  high  dignity  was  that 
he  was  father-in-law  of  the  high  priest.  And  this  is  the  more  re- 
markable since  John  evidently  regarded  Caiaphas  (see  verse  14)  as  the 
Lord's  chief  and  most  determined  enemy. 

The  assertion  of  many,  that  Luke,  who  does  not  mention  his 
name,  intends  to  designate  Annas  as  the  high  priest  (xxii.  54)  has  no 
sufficient  basis.  That  he  does  (iii.  2)  speak  of  both  Annas  and  Caia- 
phas as  high  priests,  and  in  Acts  (iv.  6)  names  Caiaphas  without  any 
official  title  but  calls  Annas  the  high  priest,  does  not  show  that  Annas 
is  here  meant.  There  is  no  question  that  Caiaphas  was  the  legal  and 
acting  high  priest.  As  such  he  is  designated  by  Matthew  and  Mark, 
and  as  such  he  takes  the  lead  in  all  the  judicial  proceedings  against 
Jesus.  Of  these  facts  Luke  could  not  be  ignorant.  He  himself 
names  Caiaphas  high  priest.  The  presumption  is  therefore  very- 
strong  that  he  alludes  to  him  here,  and  that  all  he  relates  (verses  54- 
65)  was  in  his  palace. 

As  the  place  of  Annas'  residence  to  whicii  the  Lord  was  taken, 
whether  the  same  as  that  of  Caiaphas  or  separate,  makes  an  impor- 
tant element  in  our  enquiry,  we  must  examine  it. 

There  is  a  tradition  that  Annas  had  a  house  on  the  Mount  of 
Olives  near  the  booths  or  bazaars  under  the  "  Two  Cedars."  It  is  said 
by  Lightfoot  (x.  20)  that  ' '  there  were  two  cedars  on  Mt.  Olivet,  and 


1  See  earlier  di.scussion,  page  142,  aud  Keira,  iii.  322;  Wies.,  Beitrage,  205. 


50S  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  VII 

under  one  of  these  were  four  shops  where  all  things  needful  foi 
purification  were  found,"  but  he  does  not  connect  them  with  Annas. 
(See  his  map  of  the  city,  where  the  two  cedars  and  the  booths  are 
shown.)  In  another  place  he  speaks  of  the  Sanhedrin  as  removed 
from  the  room  Gazith  to  the  shops.  It  is  said  by  Derenbourg  (200, 
note  13j :  "These  shops  were  probably  owned  by  the  priests,  and 
at  this  time  belonged  to  the  friends  of  Annas."  That  Annas  had 
a  house  here,  and  that  Jesus  was  led  to  him  after  His  arrest,  is  said  by 
Stapfer.  (See  also  Westcott  on  John  xviii.  15.)  Another  tradition 
makes  Annas  to  have  had  a  house  on  the  "  Hill  of  Evil  Counsel," 
where  it  is  said  the  Jews  met  to  take  counsel  how  to  destroy  Jesus; 
and  here  Jesus  was  taken.  But  Robinson  (i.  276)  thinks  that  this 
name  given  to  the  hill  does  not  go  back  later  than  the  ending  of 
the  15th  century.  Following  the  tradition  that  Annas  had  a  house 
on  this  hill,  Barclay  (84)  makes  Jesus  to  have  been  taken  to  him 
there,  and  then  taken  to  the  palace  of  Caiaphas  on  Mt.  Zion.  But 
the  tradition  which  places  the  palace  of  Annas  on  Mt.  Zion,  has 
much  more  in  its  favor,  and  to  this  quarter  of  the  city  we  conclude 
that  the  Lord  was  led  from  Gethsemane.  Whether  Annas  and  Caia 
phas  had  each  a  palace  here,  is  in  question.  One  tradition  points 
out  the  ruins  of  the  country  house  of  Caiaphas  on  the  Hill  of  Evil 
Counsel;  and  another  puts  it  where  now  stands  the  Armenian  Monas- 
tery; and  not  far  removed  was  the  house  of  Annas,  perhaps,  a^  said 
by  Edersheim,  on  the  slope  between  the  upper  city  and  theTyropoeon. 

But  did  the  high  priest  at  this  time  have  an  official  residence? 
This  is  often  said.  Thus  Ellicott  speaks  of  "a  common  official  resi- 
dence," and  Godet  of  "  the  sacerdotal  palace."  (See  also  Wies.,  Bei- 
trage,  209.)  But  no  distinct  mention  of  any  such  official  residence  is 
found,  though  Josephus  (War,  ii.  17.  6)  speaks  of  the  burning  of 
the  high  priest's  house.  According  to  Stroud  (187),  this  palace 
was  within  the  precincts  of  the  temple,  and  included  the  hall  of 
judgment  where  the  Sanhedrin  had  its  sessions,  but  he  cites  no 
authorities. 

The  view  that  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  being  near  relatives,  had  a 
common  residence,  is  an  old  one;  there  is  nothing  intrinsically  im- 
])robable  in  it  and  it  is  now  accepted  by  many.  It  is  modified  by 
McClellau  (Har.,  003),  who  supposes  that  Annas  may  have  been  "pres- 
ent at  the  palace  of  Caiaphas,  and  occupying  for  the  occasion  a  sepa- 
rate official  chamber,  whence  he  sent  Jesus  to  tlie  official  chamber  of 
Caiaphas,"  and  finds  an  illustration  in  the  judges  of  the  several  courts 
in  Westminster  Hall  having  their  special  official  rooms.  So  in  this 
case,  the  palace  was  that  of  the  high  priest,  and  thither  Jesus 
was  taken  and  brought  before  Annas,  who  was  awaiting  Him,  and 


Part  VIL]    BEFORE   WHOM   THE   FIRST   EXAMINATION  ?  509 

who  had  a  preliminary  examination  in  one  room  while  the  members 
of  the  Sanhedrin  were  assembling  in  another.  Some  say  that  Caia- 
phas  was  with  Annas  and  took  the  leading  part  in  the  examination. . 
(So  M.  and  M.)  Still  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  statement  that 
He  was  taken  to  Annas  first  and  then  sent  by  him  to  Caiaphas,  seems 
to  imply  more  than  a  mere  transference  from  one  room  to  another  in 
the  same  palace.  Perha})s,  however,  an  argument  may  be  found  for 
this  view  in  the  statement  that  Annas  sent  Him  "  bound"  unto  Caia- 
phas. Having  been  bound  at  the  time  of  His  arrest  (John  xviii.  12), 
it  might  appear  that  He  was  not  unbound  during  that  examination, 
which  then  must  have  been  a  very  brief  one,  the  object  of  the  bonds 
being  to  prevent  His  escape  while  passing  to  the  place  of  trial.  For 
this  reason,  He  was  unbound  when  before  the  court,  and  bound 
again  when  taken  to  Pilate  (Matt,  xxvii.  2). 

Another  view  of  the  matter  is  preferred  by  some:  that  Jesus  was 
led  to  the  palace  of  Annas  and  that  Caiaphas  was  there,  and,  as  the 
high  priest,  conducted  the  examination  mentioned  by  John;  and  that 
Jesus  was  sent  after  it  by  Annas  to  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  where  the 
Sanhedrists  were  assembling. 

The  bearing  of  the  denials  of  Peter  on  the  point  before  us  may  be 
briefly  noticed.  The  first  denial,  at  least,  must  have  been  in  the 
house  where  the  first  examination  was  held ;  if  this  was  the  house  of 
Annas,  Peter  must  have  followed  the  Lord  thither.  That  the  second 
and  third  denials  were  in  the  same  house  or  court,  is  plain  from  the 
mention  of  the  fire  kindled  there  (John  xviii.  18).  But  Matthew 
(xxvi.  58)  seems  clearly  to  say  that  Peter  followed  Jesus  to  the 
palace  of  Caiaphas  where  the  scribes  and  elders  were  assembled, 
and  that  here  in  its  court  the  denials  of  Peter  were  made.  Some 
find  here  an  irreconcilable  discrepancy  between  Matthew  and  John 
(Meyer,   Bleek). 

We  have  thus  two  suppositions.  1st.  That  Annas  and  Caiaphas 
had  a  common  palace.  In  this  case,  both  might  have  been  present  at 
the  examination ;  or  wliich  is  in  effect  the  same,  that  Annas  was  at 
the  palace  of  Caiaphas  waiting  for  the  Lord's  arrest.  But  whether 
the  questions  were  asked  by  Caiaphas  as  the  high  priest,  or  by  Annas 
who  is  so  called,  is  not  determined. 

2d.  That  Annas  and  Caiaphas  had  separate  palaces,  that  Jesus 
was  first  taken  to  Annas  but  not  examined  by  him,  and  was  sent  to  the 
palace  of  Caiaphas,  and  that  here  the  examination  mentioned  by  John 
took  place.  In  this  case  the  statement  in  verse  24  is  supplementary. 
The  obvious  objection  to  this  is  that  it  seems  to  make  the  mention  of 
the  taking  to  Annas  superfluous,  as  nothing  is  related  of  the  inter- 
view.    But  it  is  a  little  detail  which  a  writer  might  naturally  men- 


510  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

tion  for  the  sake  of  completeness;  or  it  may  be  to  show  that  all  were 
united  in  their  hostility  to  the  Lord.  It  certainly  jiresents  no  greater 
difficulty  than  the  abrupt  manner  in  which  this  Evangelist  passes 
from  the  examination,  supposing  it  to  have  been  by  Annas,  to  the  next 
statement  (verse  28):  "Then  led  they  Jesus  from  Caiaphas  unto  the 
hall  of  judgment."  But  in  whatever  point  of  view  we  regard  it,  the 
position  of  verse  24  is  peculiar.  Some  would  place  it  after  verse  13 
(so  Luther  quoted  in  Meyer),  but  for  this  there  is  no  authority;  some 
find  the  key  to  its  meaning  in  the  word  "  bound,"  as  referring  us  back 
to  verses  22  and  23.  Annas  had  sent  Him  to  Caiaphas  bound,  yet 
Caiaphas,  the  high  priest,  permits  Him  thus  helpless  to  be  smitten  in 
his  presence.  Looking  upon  the  matter  historically,  the  most  proba- 
ble arrangement  is  that  the  Lord,  though  taken  to  the  palace  of 
Annas  first,  (if  examined  by  him,  which  is  not  unlikely,  no  record  of  it 
is  given,)  was  after  a  short  interval  sent  to  Caiaphas,  in  whose 
palace  the  examination  took  place. 

2.  The  nature  of  this  first  examination.  Are  we  to  identify  this 
with  that  before  the  council  in  Matt.  xxvi.  59?  This  is  said  by  some, 
but  the  statement  of  John  shows  that  this  examination  had  no  judi- 
cial character;  there  was  no  formal  accusation,  no  witnesses,  no 
sentence  pronounced.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  Jesus  was 
now  before  the  Sanhedrin  charged  with  a  definite  crime,  and  the 
questions  asked  seemed  designed  to  find  some  matter  of  accusation. 

We  conclude  then  that  this  examination  was  one  preliminary  to 
the  trial;  and  this  is  generally  accepted. 

3.  The  trial  lefore  the  Sanhedrin.  This  is  given  only  by  the  Synop- 
tists,  John's  account,  as  we  have  seen,  being  that  only  of  the  prelimi- 
nary examination.  In  considering  the  legality  of  the  trial  several 
points  are  before  us. 

a.  The  competency  of  the  court.  As  to  this,  no  reasonable  doubt 
can  exist.  It  is  said  by  Schiirer  (ii.  1.  185)  that  it  was  "the  su- 
preme native  court,  which  here,  as  almost  everywhere  else,  the 
Romans  had  allowed  to  continue  as  before,  only  imposing  certain 
restrictions  with  regard  to  competency.  ...  It  was  the  final 
court  of  appeal  for  questions  connected  with  the  Mosaic  law.  .  .  . 
It  also  enjoyed  a  considerable  amount  of  criminal  jurisdiction." 
Among  the  oflfenses  of  which  it  took  cognizance,  were  false  claims 
to  prophetic  inspiration,  and  blasphemy.  It  also  had  charge  of 
police  matters,  and  had  its  own  officers  to  make  arrests  (John  vii.  32; 
Acts  iv.  1-3;  see  Edersheim  ii.  553).  Several  instances  are  men- 
tioned in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  where  the  disciples  were  arraigned 
before  it:  iv.  5-21;  v.  17-40;  vi.  12-15;  xxiii.  1-10.  Although  its 
origin  cannot  easily  be  traced,  \l  was  at  this  time  the  recognized  tri- 


Part  Vll]      JUDICIAL   POWERS   OF   THE   SANHEDRIN,        511 

bunal  for  the  trial  of  all  the  more  important  oflFenses.i  That  usually 
the  trials  were  fair  and  the  judgments  equitable,  there  seems  no  good 
reason  to  doubt. 

While  the  Sanhedrin  had  power  to  try  those  charged  with  capital 
offenses,  it  had  no  power  to  execute  the  sentence  of  death.  "It  was 
only  in  cases  in  which  such  sentence  of  death  was  pronounced,  that 
the  judgment  required  to  be  ratified  by  the  authority  of  the  procura- 
tor" (Schiirer).  It  is  generally  agreed  that  from  the  time  Judaea  be- 
came a  Roman  province,  or  from  the  deposition  of  Archelaus  (759) 
the  authority  to  punish  capitally,  the  jus  gladii,  had  been  taken  away 
from  the  Jewish  tribunals.  Lightfoot  (on  Matt.  xxvi.  3)  gives  as  a 
tradition  of  the  Talmudists:  "Forty  years  before  the  temple  was  de- 
stroyed, judgment  in  capital  cases  was  taken  away  from  Israel."  But 
this  limitation  to  forty  years  has  clearly  no  basis.  It  seems  to  have 
been  the  custom  of  the  Romans  to  take  into  their  own  hands,  in  con- 
quered provinces,  the  power  of  life  and  death,  as  one  of  the  princi- 
pal attributes  of  sovereignty.^  That  the  Sanhedrin  lost  this  power 
by  its  own  remissness  and  not  by  any  act  of  the  Romans,  as  affirmed 
by  Lightfoot  from  the  Talmudists,    is  wholly  improbable. '•* 

It  has  been  inferred  by  some  from  Pilate's  words  to  the  Jews 
(John  xix.  6),  "  Take  ye  Him  and  crucify  Him,"  that  the  right  to  in- 
flict capital  punishment  in  ecclesiastical  cases,  though  not  in  civil, 
was  still  continued  to  them.*  Bynaeus  (iii.  10)  affirms  that  the  Jews 
had  had  judgment  in  capital  cases  other  than  that  of  treason,  but  that 
from  fear  of  the  people  they  charged  the  Lord  with  this  offense  in 
order  to  throw  the  odium  of  His  execution  upon  Pilate.  But  these 
words  seem  to  have  been  spoken  in  bitter  irony.  ^  Crucifixion  was 
not  a  Jewish  punishment,  nor  could  they  inflict  it.  Krafft  (142) 
explains  their  language  (John  xviii.  30),  "If  He  were  not  a  male- 
factor, we  would  not  have  delivered  Him  up  unto  thee,"  as  meaning 
tliat  He  was  guilty  of  a  civil  offense;  as  if  they  had  said,  "Were 
this  man  a  spiritual  offender,  we  would  have  punished  Him  our- 
selves." They  therefore  accused  Him  of  civil  crime  in  order  to 
throw  the  responsibility  of  His  death  upon  Pilate.  But  against 
this  is  the  fact  that  Pilate  refused  to  punish  Him  for  any  such  offense, 
and  that  the  Jews  were  at  last  obliged  to  charge  Him  with  violation 
of  ecclesiastical  law  (John  xix.  7).  It  is  certain  that  if  they  had  had 
power  to  punish  Him  upon  this  ground,  he  would  at  once  have  given 


>  Friedlieb,  Archaol.,  20;  Winer,  ii.  552. 

2  See  Dupin,  Jesus  devant  Caiphe  et  Pilate.    Paris,  1855,  p.  88. 

3  See  Winer,  ii.  553,  notel;  Friedlieb,  Archaol.,  97. 
«  So  A.  Clarke,  Krafft. 

5  Meyer,  in  loco.     "  Is  He  to  be  crucified?    Tlien  it  shall  be  by  yourselves,  and  not 
by  me."    M.  and  M. 


512  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  VII 

the  case  into  their  haads  and  thus  thrown  ofT  all  respousibility  from 
himself.  Their  words  (xviii.  31),  "It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any 
man  to  death,"  seem  plainly  to  cover  the  whole  ground  and  to  em- 
brace ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil  cases.'  The  view  supported  l)y 
some,^  that  the  Jews  had  authority  to  put  Jesus  to  death,  but  did  not 
dare  exercise  it  because  of  the  holiness  of  the  day,  and  yet  did  not 
dare  retain  Him  in  prison  lest  it  should  provoke  insurrection,  and  so 
sought  Pilate's  help,  seems  without  any  good  basis. 

It  thus  appears  that  all  capital  olfenses  must  be  reserved  to  the 
cognizance  of  the  procurator.  The  Sanhedrin  could  try  and  convict, 
but  must  obtain  his  assent  ere  the  sentence  could  be  executed. 
These  reserved  cases  Pilate  seems  to  have  been  in  the  habit  of  hear- 
ing when  he  went  up  from  Caesarea  to  Jerusalem  at  the  feasts.  The 
case  of  Jesus,  then,  must  necessarily  come  before  him,  and  he  could 
confirm  or  set  aside  their  verdict  as  he  jileased.  "  It  appears,"  says 
Lardner,  "from  the  sequel,  that  Pilate  was  the  supreme  judge  in  this 
case  and  the  master  of  the  event.  For  he  gave  the  case  a  fresh  hear- 
ing, asked  the  Jews  what  accusation  they  had  brought,  examined 
Jesus,  and  when  he  had  done  so,  told  them  that  he  found  in  Him  no 
fault  at  all.  Thus  his  conduct  is  full  proof  that  he  was  the  judge, 
and  that  they  were  only  prosecutors  and  accusers." 

i.  The  legality  of  the  jirocedure.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  in 
some  important  points  the  court  did  not  observe  its  own  rules.  These 
were  violated  both  as  regards  the  time  and  the  place.  No  session  could 
be  held  at  night,  but  "  they  spent  the  night  in  judging  on  a  capital 
cause,  which  is  expressly  forbid  by  their  own  canon  "  (Light,  on  Matt, 
xxvii.  1) ;  and  the  regular  place  of  meeting  was  in  the  hall  Gazith  con- 
nected with  the  temple  (Light.,  "  Prospect  of  the  Temple  ",  chapter 
xxii.).  But  more  important  violations  were  that  no  formal  accusation 
was  presented,  and  no  accuser  appeared;  that  no  witnesses  appeared 
for  the  Lord,  and  that  the  witnesses  against  Him  were  not  shown  to 
be  trustworthy,  that  He  Himself  was  put  under  oath;'  and  that  the 
sentence  was  immediately  carried  into  execution,  the  usual  delay  of 
twenty-four  hours  not  l)eing  granted.  That  the  legal  forms  were  not 
observed,  is  not  only  said  by  Christians  but  admitted  by  some  of  the 
Jews.  Thus  Jost  (quoted  in  Edersheim,  ii.  553)  calls  the  condemna- 
tion "a  private  murder,  committed  by  burning  enemies,  not  the  sen- 
tence of  a  regularly  constituted  Sanhedrin."     In  fact.  He  had  long 


1  As  to  the  death  of  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  58),  and  its  bearings  on  this  point,  see 
Meyer  and  Lechler  in  loco,  who  maintain  that  it  was  an  act  of  vicilcnce,  and  illegal;  so 
Schiirur;  contra,  Alexander,  in  loco;  Winer,  ii.  5.53,  note  2. 

2  Early  by  Augustine;  sec  Godwyn,  Moses  and  .Varon,  200. 
?  gee  Friedlieb,  Archaol.,  87;  Dupin,  ''5;  Keiin,  iii.  :i'i7  ff. 


Part  VII.]  OF  WHAT  THE   LORD   ACCUSED.  513 

been  prejudged  and  His  death  predetermined.  Almost  from  the  be- 
ginning of  His  ministry,  spies  had  been  sent  to  watch  His  actions; 
and  afterward  it  was  agreed  that  if  any  man  did  confess  that  He  was 
Christ,  he  should  be  put  out  of  the  synagogue  (John  ix.  22).  After 
the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  it  was  determined  in  council  by  the 
advice  of  Caiaphas  that  He  should  be  put  to  death,  and  that  on  the 
ground  of  the  public  welfare,  without  regard  to  His  guilt  or  innocence 
(John  xi.  47-53).  After  His  public  entry  into  Jerusalem,  several 
attempts  were  made  to  entangle  Plim  in  His  talk;  then  a  consultation 
was  held  how  they  might  take  Him  by  subtlety  and  kill  Him ;  then 
one  of  His  apostles  was  bribed  to  betray  Him ;  and  at  last  He  was 
arrested  at  dead  of  night.  The  abuse  which  He  suffered  both  before 
and  after  the  trial,  and  in  the  very  presence  of  His  judges,  suffi- 
ciently shows  how  bitter  and  cruel  was  their  enmity  toward  Him. 

c.  The  nature  of  the  accusation.  It  was  very  difficult  for  the 
rulers  to  find  any  offense  recognized  as  such  by  the  Roman  governor, 
for  which  the  Lord  could  be  condemned  to  death.  As  He  said  at  His 
examination  before  the  high  priest,  He  had  spoken  openly  to  the 
world  in  the  temple  and  the  synagogue,  He  had  said  nothing  in 
secret,  so  that  there  was  no  want  of  witnesses;  but  there  was  nothing 
that  answered  their  purpose  till  two  testified  of  His  words  spoken  at 
the  first  passover  (John  ii.  19) :  "  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three 
days  I  will  raise  it  up."  By  perverting  His  language,  this  was  made 
a  boast  or  a  threat ;  but  if  deserving  of  any  jjunishment,  certainly  not 
worthy  of  death ;  and  even  here  the  witnesses  did  not  agree.  Some 
more  serious  offense  must  be  found,  and  this  must  be  found  in  His 
Messianic  claims.  That  Jesus  claimed  to  be  the  predicted  Messiah, 
and  that  His  disciples  believed  on  Him  as  such,  was  well-known. 
But  that  the  mere  claim  to  be  the  Messiah,  if  proved  false,  was  re- 
garded by  the  Jews  as  blasphemy  and  a  capital  offense,  is  very  ques- 
tionable; still  if  so,  there  was  the  difficulty  in  finding  sufficient  proof 
against  Him.  In  no  instance  recorded,  except  that  of  the  Samaritan 
woman  (John  iv.  26),  did  He  avow  Himself  to  be  the  Christ  when 
other  than  His  disciples  were  present.  Nor  did  He  permit  evil  spirits 
to  proclaim  Him  as  the  Messiah  (Mark  i.  34).  To  the  direct  question 
of  the  Jews  (John  x.  24),  He  answered  by  referring  them  to  His  works. 
He  permitted  the  apostles  to  confess  their  faith  in  Him  as  the  Christ 
(Matt.  xvi.  16),  but  He  gave  them  strict  command  that  they  should 
tell  it  to  no  man  (verse  20).  Probably  no  two  witnesses  could  be 
found  outside  of  the  ranks  of  the  disciples,  who  had  ever  heard  out  of 
His  own  lips  an  avowal  of  His  Messiahship.  Had,  then,  such  an 
avowal  been  blasphemy,  they  could  not  on  this  ground  have  con- 
demned Him  for  want  of  proof. 
28*- 


514  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

What  grounds  of  accusation  did  His  acts  give  ?  That  in  several 
points  He  had  disregarded  the  Pharisaic  traditions  was  not  denied. 
He  had  broken  the  Sabbath  according  to  their  construction  of  the 
law,  by  the  healing  of  the  sick  on  that  day,  and  perhaps  in  other 
ways;  He  had  assumed  the  right  to  forgive  sins;  He  had  declared 
Himself  the  Lord  of  tlie  Sabbath ;  He  had  cleansed  the  tem])le,  and 
spoken  very  severe  words  against  the  ecclesiastical  rulers  and  the  popu- 
lar leaders.  But  we  may  doubt  whether  if  these  were  all,  He  would 
have  been  found  worthy  of  death.' 

It  has  been  said  that  the  Jews  found  cause  to  charge  Jesus  with 
blasphemy  in  that  He  had  wrought  miracles  in  His  own  name.  "He 
had  performed  many  miracles,  but  never  in  any  other  name  than  His 
own."'^  It  is  said  that  He  had  thus  violated  the  law  (Deut.  xviii.  20). 
"He  that  shall  speak  in  the  name  of  other  gods,  even  that  prophet 
shall  die  " ;  for  if  to  prophesy  in  the  name  of  another  god  deserved 
death,  equally  so  to  perform  any  miracle  or  supernatural  work  in  his 
name.  But  it  may  well  be  questioned  whether,  on  this  ground.  He 
could  have  been  tried  for  blasphemy.  If  He  did  not  work  His  mira- 
cles expressly  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  yet  He  ever  affirmed  that 
the  power  was  not  in  Himself,  but  from  God.  (Compare  John  v. 
19,  viii.  18.)  Nor  was  He  ever  understood  to  work  them  by  virtue 
of  His  own  deity.  Beholding  what  He  did,  the  multitudes  "mar- 
velled and  glorified  God  who  had  given  such  power  unto  men  "  (Matt. 
ix.  8).  And  at  His  final  entry  into  Jerusalem  the  cry  of  the  people 
was,  "Blessed  is  He  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

We  conclude,  then,  that  upon  no  ground  could  the  Jews,  through 
their  witnesses,  convict  Him  of  any  ecclesiastical  offense  punishable 
with  death.  Neither  for  His  Messianic  claims,  nor  for  the  works  by 
which  He  attested  them,  nor  as  a  false  prophet,  could  He  be  legally 
convicted  of  blasphemy.  His  violations  of  the  Sabbath  were  not 
such  as  they  could  punish  with  severity,  if  at  all.  He  had  not  denied 
the  authority  of  the  law.  He  had  not  spoken  against  Jehovah.  If  He 
had  disturbed  the  public  peace,  punishment  of  this  offense  properly 
belonged  to  the  Romans.  Thus,  upon  the  rule  which  He  had  Himself 
laid  down  (John  xviii.  21),  "  Ask  them  which  heard  me  what  I  have 
said  unto  them,"  He  could  not  have  been  convicted.  Only  by  His 
own  testimony  was  He  brought  within  the  scope  of  the  law.  He 
was  at  last  condemned  upon  His  confession  that  He  was  the  Christ 


1  In  John  V.  16,  where  it  is  said,  "  The  Jews  sought  to  slay  Him  because  He  had 
done  these  things  on  the  Sabbath  day,"  the  clause  "sought  to  slay  Him,"  is  omitted  by 
Tischendorf.    So  Alford,  Meyer,  W.  and  H.,  and  R.  V. 

«  Greeuleaf,  Test,  of  Evangelists,  524, 


Part  VIl]  GROUND   OF  CONDEMNATION.  515 

and  the  Son  of  God.  This  fact  is  very  remarkable,  and  demands  our 
attentive  consideration. 

d.  Ground  of  condemnation.  A  Jewish  writer,  Salvador,  in  his 
"Histoire  des  Institutions  de  Molse,"'  commenting  upon  the  trial 
of  Jesus,  attempts  to  show  that  He  was  tried  fairly,  and  condemned 
legally.  He  spoke  of  Himself,  says  tliis  writer,  as  God,  and  His 
disciples  repeated  it.  This  was  shocking  blasphemy  in  the  eyes 
of  the  citizens.  It  was  this,  not  His  prophetic  claims,  which  excited 
the  people  against  Him.  The  law  permitted  them  to  acknowledge 
prophets,  but  nothing  more.  In  answer  to  Caiaphas,  He  admits  that 
He  is  the  Son  of  God,  this  expression  including  the  idea  of  God 
Himself.  "The  Sanhedrin  deliberates.  The  question  already  raised 
among  the  people  was  this:  Has  Jesus  become  God?  But  the  senate 
having  adjudged  that  Jesus  had  profaned  the  name  of  God  by 
usurping  it  to  Himself,  a  mere  citizen,  applied  to  Him  the  law  of 
blasphemy  (Deut.  xiii.,  and  xviii.  20),  according  to  which  every 
prophet,  even  he  who  works  miracles,  must  be  punished  when  he 
speaks  of  a  God  unknown  to  the  Jews  and  their  fathers;  and  the 
capital  sentence  was  pronounced." 

Had  the  accusation  against  Jesus,  as  asserted  by  Salvador,  had  re- 
spect simply  to  His  assertion  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  had 
He  been  condemned  upon  this  ground  only,  however  great  the  blind- 
ness and  guilt  in  not  recognizing  His  divine  character,  it  could  not  be 
said  that  the  court  acted  illegally.  Such  an  assertion  from  the  lips  of 
any  mere  man  was  blasphemous.  If  a  false  prophet  deserved  to  die, 
how  much  more  he  who  made  himself  equal  with  God !  Was  it  for 
this  that  He  was,  in  fact,  condemned?  When  nothing  worthy  of 
death  could  be  proved  against  Him  by  the  witnesses,  Caiaphas  ad- 
jured Him  by  the  living  God,  "  Tell  us  whether  thou  be  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God.""  We  cannot  certainly  determine  how  these  two 
expressions,  "the  Christ,"  and  "the  Son  of  God,"  were  connected  in 
the  mind  of  Caiaphas.  It  may  be  that  he  regarded  them  as  of  sub- 
stantially the  same  meaning,  though  it  may  be  questioned  how  far  the 
title,  Son  of  God,  was  one  of  the  customary  titles  of  the  Messiah  at 
this  time.  Still,  it  had  been  so  often  and  openly  applied  to  Jesus, 
that  we  cannot  well  suppose  Caiaphas  ignorant  of  it.  At  the  time  of 
His  baptism,  John  the  Baptist  testified  of  His  Divine  Sonship  (John 
i.  34):  "I  saw  and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God."  Very 
soon  after  (verse  49),  Nathanaol  thus  avows  his  faith:   "Rabbi,  thou 


>  Cited  by  Greenleaf,  Test.,  529,  and  by  Dupin,  Refutation,  41. 

2  Matt.  xxvi.  6.3.  According  to  Mark,  "  Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
Blessed?"  This  adjuration,  according  to  Jewish  custom,  was  equivalent  to  putting  the 
Lord  under  oath.     Friedliub,  Archaol.,  91. 


516  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

art  the  Son  of  God;  thou  art  the  King  of  Israel."  Often  was  He 
thus  addressed  by  evil  spirits  whom  He  cast  out  (Matt.  viii.  29 ;  Mark 
iii.  11,  V.  7;  Luke  iv.  41,  viii.  28).  After  the  stilling  of  the  tempest 
(Matt.  xiv.  33),  those  in  the  ship  said,  "  Of  a  truth  thou  art  the  Son 
of  God."  So  was  He  addressed  by  Martha  (John  xi.  27) :  "I  believe 
that  thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  At  His  death  the  cen- 
turion and  guard  said  (Mark  xv.  39),  "Truly  this  was  the  (a)  Son  of 
God."  Only  in  one  instance,  however,  did  Jesus  directly  claim  for 
Himself  this  title  (John  ix.  35-37),  although  He  often  indirectly 
applied  it  to  Himself.  (So  John  xi.  4.)  In  like  manner  He  re- 
peatedly speaks  of  God  as  His  Father  (John  v.  17). 

Granting  that  this  phrase,  "  Son  of  God,"  was  currently  applied 
to  men  of  great  wisdom  and  piety,  still,  as  Salvador  admits,  it  could 
not  have  been  so  used  by  Caiaphas.  If  it  did  not,  in  its  ordinary 
usage,  imply  participation  of  the  Divine  nature,  it  nevertheless  was 
in  this  act  of  adjuration  and  was  designed  to  be,  a  designation  that 
distinguished  the  Lord  from  all  other  men. 

Perhaps  Caiaphas,  in  his  adjuration,  purposely  selected  both  titles, 
that  in  this  way  the  Lord's  own  conceptions  of  His  Messianic  dignity 
might  be  drawn  out,  and  the  way  opened  for  further  questions.  The 
answer  of  Jesus,  "Thou  hast  said,"  was  an  express  affirmation,  as  if 
He  had  said,  "I  am,"  and  was  regarded  as  blasphemy.  It  could 
have  been  so  only  as  it  imjilied  equality  with  God,  or  an  assumption 
of  the  power  and  authority  that  belonged  to  Jehovah  alone.  That 
the  Jews  so  understood  it,  is  plain  from  their  language  (John  xix.  7) 
to  Pilate  afterward.  When  they  learned  that  in  His  teaching  He 
presented  Himself  as  one  with  the  Father,  or  ' '  made  Himself  equal 
with  God"  (John  v.  18),  this  was  a  flagrant  transgression  of  the 
law  and  a  capital  offense.  The  first  of  the  ten  commandments  was, 
"  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me,"  and  for  a  man  to  make 
himself  God,  the  equal  of  Jehovah,  was  a  violation  of  this  command, 
and  a  crime  of  the  deepest  dye.  It  was  both  blasphemy  and  treason, 
and  hence  the  attempt  of  the  Jews  to  kill  Him  upon  the  spot.  A 
few  months  later  they  "  murmured  at  Him  because  He  said,  I  am  the 
Bread  which  came  down  from  Heaven"  (John  vi.  41).  "When,  a  little 
later,  He  said,  "Before  Abraham  was,  I  am"  (viii.  58),  thus  imply- 
ing a  divine  pre-existence,  they  took  up  stones  to  stone  Him ;  and 
when  afterwai-d  (x.  30)  He  still  more  plainly  affirmed,  "laud  my 
Father  are  one,"  they  again  sought  to  stone  Him.  They  expressly 
declared,  "We  stone  thee  for  blasjihemy,  and  Ijccause  that  thou,  be- 
ing a  man,  makest  thyself  God." 

4.  The  Denials  of  Peter.  Let  us  now  consider  more  fully  the  three 
denials  of  Peter.     After  the  arrest,  he,  with  "  another  disciple,"  fol- 


Part  VII.]  THE  DENIALS   OF   PETER.  t)17 

lowed  Jesus  to  the  high  priest's  palace.  It  is  disputed  who  this 
other  disciple  was.  Most  regard  it  as  a  modest  designation  of  John 
himself;  others,  of  some  unknown  disciple.  A.  Clarke  approves 
Grotius'  conjecture  that  it  was  the  person  at  whose  house  Jesus 
had  supped.  Some  have  thought  of  Judas.  This  disciple,  being 
knoAvn  unto  the  high  priest,  was  permitted  to  enter  with  those  who 
were  leading  Jesus,  but  Peter  was  shut  out.  Perceiving  this,  he 
turned  back  and  persuaded  the  woman  ihat  kept  the  door  to  admit 
Peter  also.  They  seem  then,  or  soon  after,  to  have  separated,  as 
no  mention  is  afterward  made  of  the  other  disciple.  Either  before 
or  soon  after  Peter's  entrance,  the  officer  and  soldiers  made  a  fire  of 
coals  in  the  court. 

To  understand  the  details  that  follow,  it  is  necessary  to  have  in 
mind  the  ordinary  construction  of  oriental  houses,  which  is  thus  de- 
scribed by  Robinson :'  "An  oriental  house  is  usually  built  around  a 
quadrangular  interior  court,  into  which  there  is  a  passage  (sometimes 
arched)  through  the  front  part  of  the  house,  closed  next  the  street  by 
a  heavy  folding  gate  with  a  smaller  wicket  for  single  persons,  kept  by 
a  jDorter.  In  the  text  the  interior  court,  often  paved  and  flagged, 
and  open  to  the  sky,  is  the  avX-f),  (translated  in  A.  V.,  'palace,'  'hall,' 
and  'court,' but  in  R.  V.,  uniformly  'court')  where  the  attendants 
made  a  fire ;  and  the  passage  beneath  the  front  of  the  house,  from  the 
street  to  this  court,  is  the  irpoa^Xtov  (Mark  xiv.  68)  or  irvKdjv  (Matt.  xxvi. 
71),  both  translated  'porch.'  The  place  where  Jesus  stood  before 
the  high  priest  may  have  been  an  open  room  or  place  of  audience  on 
the  ground  floor  in  the  rear  or  on  one  side  of  the  court ;  sucli  rooms, 
open  in  front,  being  customary."  In  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary  (i.  838), 
the  writer  speaks  of  "an  apartment  called  maZ:;«cZ,  open  in  front  to 
the  court,  with  two  or  more  arches  and  a  railing,  and  a  pillar  to  sup- 
port the  wall  above.  It  was  in  a  chamber  of  this  kind,  probably  one 
of  the  largest  size  to  be  found  in  a  palace,  that  our  Lord  was  ar- 
raigned before  the  high  priest  at  the  time  when  the  denial  of  Him  by 
St.  Peter  took  place."  That  the  trial  of  Jesus  actually  occurred  in 
such  an  interior  apartment  seems  plain  from  Matt.  xxvi.  69,  where 
Peter  is  spoken  of  as  sitting  "without  in  the  palace,"  or  court, 
e^w  iv  ry  av\ri,  implying  that  the  Lord  and  His  judges  were  in  an 
inner  room.''  Mark  (xiv.  66)  speaks  of  Peter  as  "beneath  in  the 
palace,"  iv  ry  avXy  /cdrw,  "  in  the  court  below."  "Not  in  the  lower 
story  of  the  house  or  palace,"  says  Alexander,  "as  the  English  ver- 
sion seems  to  mean,  but  in  the  open  space  around  which  it  was 
built,  and  which  was  lower  than  the  floor  of  the  surrounding 
rooms." 


1  Har.,  225. 

2  See  Meyer,  in  loco. 


518 


THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD. 


[Part  VII. 


The  questions  connected  with  Peter's  denials,  ies2)ect  place,  time, 
and  persons.  For  convenient  inspection,  we  give  them  in  tabular 
form: 

FIRST    DENIAL. 


Matthew. 

Mark. 

Luke. 

John. 

Questioner 

Time 

Maid  servant. 
Indefinite. 

Court. 

"Thou  also  wast 

with  Jesus  of 

Galilee." 

"  I    know    not 
what  thou  gay- 
est." 

Maid  servant. 
Indefinite. 

By  fire  in  court. 

"Thou  also  wast 
with  Jesus  of 
Nazareth." 

"I    know    not, 
neither  under- 
stand I,  what 
thou  say  est." 

A  certain  maid. 
Indefinite. 

By  fire  in  court. 
"  This  man  was 
also  with  Him." 

"Woman,     I 
know     Him 
not." 

Portress. 

Place 

tering. 
Court. 

Denial 

also  one  of  this 
man's    disci- 
ples ■? " 
"I  am  not." 

SECOND  DENIAL. 

Questioner 

Time 

Another  maid. 
Indefinite. 

Porch. 

"  This  was  also 
with  Jesns  of 
Nazareth." 

With   an   oath, 
"I     do     not 
know       the 
man." 

The  maid. 
Indefinite. 

Porch. 

"  This  is  one  of 
them." 

He     denied     it 
again. 

A  man. 

After     a     little 

while. 
Indefinite. 
"Thou  art  also 

of  them." 

"Man,    I   am 
not." 

They. 
Indefinite. 

Place 

By  the  fire. 

Question 

Denial 

"Art  not  thou 
also  one  of  His 
disciples  ? " 

"  I  am  not." 

THIRD  DENIAL. 

Questioner 

Time 

They  that  stood 
by- 
After  a  while. 

Indefinite. 

"Surely  thou 
art  also  one  of 
them,   for  thy 
speech   betray- 
eth  thee." 

With     cursing 
and    swearing, 
"  I    know    not 
the  man." 

They  that  stood 
by. 

A  little  after. 

Indefinite. 

"Surely  thou 
art    one    of 
them,  for  thou 
art  a  Galilsean, 
and  thy  speech 
agreeth    there- 
to." 

"I    know    not 
the    man   of 
whom      you 
speak." 

A  man. 

About  the  space 
of    an    hour 
after. 

Indefinite. 

"Of   a    truth 
this  fellow  also 
was  with  Him, 
for    he    is   a 
Galilaean." 

"Man,  I  know 
not  what  thou 
sayest." 

A  servant  of  the 
high    priest, 
kinsman  of 
Malchus. 

Indefinite. 

Place 

Indefinite. 

"Did  I  not  see 

Denial 

thee  in    the 
garden  with 
Him?" 

Peter   then  de- 

nied again. 

The  points  of  place  and  time  are  closely  connected  with  some  points 
already  discussed.  If  the  Lord  was  examined  in  the  court  of  Annas 
and  then  taken  to  the  house  of  Caiaplias,  the  first  denial  was  in  the 
court  of  Annas,  and  probably  also  the  second,  and  the  third  only  in 


Part  VII.]  THE   DENIALS   OF   PETER,  519 

that  of  Caiaphas.  To  this  change  of  place  there  is  a  strong-  objection 
in  the  fact  of  the  fire,  which  indicates  one  and  the  same  court.  If 
Annas  and  Caiaphas  had  the  same  court,  this  objection,  indeed,  does 
not  hold,  as  there  was  no  change  of  place.  But  if,  as  seems  most 
probable,  the  examination  was  before  Caiaphas,  not  Annas,  all  took 
place  in  his  court. 

The  exact  relations  in  which  the  denials  of  Peter  stand  in  order 
of  time  to  the  examination  and  trial  of  the  Lord,  it  is  impossible  to 
determine.  Probably  the  first  denial  and  perhaps,  also,  the  second  — 
for  there  seems  to  have  been  but  a  short  interval  between  them  (Luke 
xxii.  58)  —  may  have  been  during  the  preliminary  examination  before 
Caiaphas,  or  at  least  before  the  assembling  of  the  Sanhedrin;  and 
the  third  about  an  hour  later,  during  the  trial  or  at  its  close.  The 
incident  recorded  by  Luke  (xxii.  61),  that  immediately  after  the  third 
denial,  as  the  cock  crew,  the  Lord  turned  and  looked  upon  Peter,  is 
supposed  by  some  to  show  that  Jesus  was  now  passing  from  one 
apartment  to  another,  and  as  He  passed,  turned  and  looked  upon  Peter 
who  was  standing  near  by.  But  if  so,  when  was  this?  Those  who 
put  the  preliminary  examination  in  the  house  of  Annas,  and  Peter's  de- 
nials there,  make  this  the  departure  to  Caiaphas  after  the  examination 
(Godet);  others,  the  change  from  the  apartment  in  Caiaphas'  palace 
where  He  had  been  examined,  to  that  in  which  He  was  to  be  tried; 
others,  His  departure  after  the  trial  from  Caiaphas  to  Pilate.  But  it  is 
not  necessary  to  suppose  any  change  of  place  on  the  part  of  the  Lord. 
As  we  have  seen,  the  Sanhedrin  probably  assembled  in  a  large  room 
directly  connected  with  the  court  and  open  in  front,  and  therefore 
what  was  said  in  the  one  could,  with  more  or  less  distinctness,  be 
heard  in  the  other.  There  is,  then,  no  difficulty  in  believing  that 
Jesus  may  have  heard  all  the  denials  of  Peter;  and  that  now,  as  he 
denied  Him  for  the  third  time,  and  the  cock  crew,  He  turned  Himself 
to  the  court  and  looked  upon  the  conscience-stricken  apostle.  Meyer, 
indeed,  finds  it  psychologically  impossible  that  he  should  have  made 
these  denials  in  the  presence  of  Jesus;  but  in  fact,  Peter  was  not 
in  His  presence,  though  not  far  removed.  Still,  the  probability  is 
that  this  third  denial  was  when  the  trial  was  over  and  the  Lord  was 
brought  from  the  inner  room  into  the  court. 

A  second  question  respects  the  persons.  In  regard  to  the  first 
denial  there  are  no  special  difficulties.  How  soon  after  Peter  entered 
the  court  he  was  addressed  by  the  damsel  who  kept  the  door,  or  por- 
tress, does  not  appear.  It  is  probable  that,  as  her  attention  had  been 
specially  drawn  to  him  when  he  was  admitted  as  a  friend  of  John, 
she  watched  him  as  he  stood  by  the  fire ;  and  that  something  in  his 
appearance  or  conduct  may  have  confirmed  her  suspicions  that  he  was 


520  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

a  disciple.  The  attention  of  all  who  heard  her  must  now  have  been 
directed  to  Peter,  but  no  one  seems  to  have  joined  her  in  her  accusa- 
tion. 

In  regard  to  the  second  denial,  there  are  several  apparent  discrep- 
ancies both  as  to  the  persons  and  the  place.  The  former  are  described 
as  "  another  maid,"  "the  (same)  maid,"  "another  person,"  "they." 
But  in  the  several  narratives  it  is  plain  that  it  is  not  deemed  impor- 
tant to  specify  who  addressed  Peter;  the  important  point  is  his 
denials.  The  matter  may  very  naturally  be  thus  arranged :  The  damsel 
who  first  accused  him,  silenced  for  the  time  but  not  satisfied  with 
his  denial,  speaks  to  another  maid  servant  and  points  out  Peter  to 
her  as  one  whom  she  knew  or  believed  to  be  a  disciple.  Seeing  him 
soon  after  in  the  porch  or  fore-court,  for,  in  the  agitation  of  his  spirit 
he  cannot  keep  still,  she  renews  the  charge  that  he  is  a  disciple,  and 
the  other  maid  repeats  it.  Others,  hearing  the  women,  also  join  with 
them,  perhaps  dimly  remembering  his  person,  or  now  noting  some- 
thing peculiar  in  his  manner.  That,  under  the  circumstances  and  in 
the  excitement  of  the  moment,  such  an  accusation,  once  raised,  should 
be  echoed  by  many,  is  what  we  should  expect.  During  the  confu- 
sion of  this  questioning,  Peter  returns  again  to  the  fire  in  the  interior 
court  where  most  were  standing,  and  there  repeats  with  an  oath  his 
denial.  There  is  no  necessity  for  transposing,  with  Ellicott,  the  first 
and  second  denials  as  given  by  John. 

The  second  denial,  so  energetically  made,  seems  to  have  finally 
silenced  the  women,  and  there  is  no  repetition  of  the  charge  for  about 
the  space  of  an  hour.  During  this  interval,  Peter,  perhaps  the  better 
to  allay  suspicion,  joins  in  the  conversation,  and  is  recognized  as  a 
Galilaean  by  his  manner  of  speech.  As  most  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus 
were  Galilaeans,  this  again  draws  attention  to  him.  Perhaps  the 
kinsman  of  Malchus,  who  had  been  with  the  multitude  and  had  seen 
him  in  the  garden,  and  now  remembers  his  person,  begins  the  out- 
cry and  the  bystanders  join  with  him;  and  the  more  that  Peter's  very 
denials  betray  his  Galilaean  birth.  The  charge,  thus  repeated  by  so 
many,  and  upon  such  apparently  good  grounds,  threatens  immediate 
danger,  and  Peter  therefore  denies  it  with  the  utmost  vehemence, 
with  oaths  and  cursings.' 

We  have  no  datum  to  determine  at  what  hour  of  the  night  these 
denials  took  place,  except  we  find  it  in  the  cock-crowings.     Mark 


1  For  a  recent  discussion  of  these  denials,  see  McClellan,  Har.,  494.  He  thinks 
that  we  cannot  limit  the  acts  of  denial  to  three,  and  finds  si.x;  three  in  the  court  by  the 
fire,  and  three  in  the  porch.  To  the  objection  that  the  Lord  foretold  a  threefold 
denial,  he  answers  that  "  thrice  "  is  to  be  taken  in  an  indefinite  sense.  See  Gardiner, 
Har.,  in  loco  ;  Noljc,  ii.  353. 


Part  VII.]  ORDER  OF  EVENTS.  521 

(xiv.  68)  relates  that  after  the  first  denial  the  cock  crew.  All  the 
Evangelists  mention  the  third  denial  in  connection  with  the  second 
cock-crowing.  Greswell  (iii.  216)  makes  the  first  cock-crowing  to 
have  been  about  2  a.  m.,  and  the  second,  about  3  a.  m.'  But  we  do  not 
know  whether  this  second  cock-crowing  was  at  the  end  of  the  first 
examination,  or  during  the  formal  trial,  or  at  its  close,  and  to  de- 
termine when  the  Sanhedrin  began  its  session.  We  cannot,  how- 
ever, well  place  it  later  than  2  a.  m.  How  long  it  continued  we 
shall  presently  see. 

We  may  thus  give  the  order  of  events : 

1.  The  Lord  and  His  apostles  leave  the  upper  room  an  hour 
before  midnight,  and  go  to  Gethsemane. 

2.  The  arrest  in  Gethsemane  about  midnight  or  a  little  after. 

3.  He  is  taken  to  Annas,  but  no  examination  before  him  is 
recorded. 

4.  He  is  soon  taken  to  Caiaphas,  and  here  is  a  brief  preliminary 
examination,  mentioned  only  by  John,  and  after  it  followed  the 
abuse  by  one  of  the  high  priest's  officers. 

5.  The  Sanhedrin  assembles  at  one  or  two  in  the  morning  in  the 
palace  of  Caiaphas,  and  the  Lord  is  formally  tried  and  condemned, 
and  then  abused  by  the  members  (Matt.  xxvi.  67). 

6.  The  Sanhedrin,  after  a  temporary  adjournment,  reassembles 
at  break  of  day  to  determine  how  to  bring  Jesus  before  Pilate ;  and  at 
this  time  His  confession  is  repeated,  but  without  a  formal  trial.  This 
hearing  only  in  Luke  (xxii.  66). 

7.  The  Lord  is  taken  to  Pilate  in  the  early  morning. 

Friday  Morning,  15th  Nisan,  7th  April,  783.    A.  D.  30. 

After  the  Sanhedrin  had  pronounced  Him  guilty 
of  blasphemy,  and  so  worthy  of  death,  it  suspends  its 

session  to  meet  at  break  of  day.     During  this  interval    Matt.  xxvi.  67,  68. 
Jesus  remains  in  the  high  priest's  palace,  exposed  to    Mark  xiv.  65. 
all  the  ridicule  and  insults  of  His  enemies,  who  spit    Luke  xxii.  63-65. 
upon   Him,  and  smite  Him.     As  soon  as   it  is  day    Matt,  xxvii.  1,  2. 
the  Sanliediin  again  assembles,  and  after  hearing  His    Mark  xv.  1. 
confession  that  He  is  the  Christ,  formally  adjudges    Luke  xxii.  66-71. 
Him  to  death.     Binding  Him,  they  led  Him  away  to    Luke  xxiii.  1. 
the  Roman  governor  Pontius  Pilate,  that  he  may  exe- 
cute the  sentence.    Judas  Lscariot,  learning  the  issue    Matt,  xxvii.  3-10. 
of  the  trial,  and  that  Jesus  is  about  to  be  put  to    Acts  i.  18,19. 
death,  returns  the  money  the  chief  priests  have  given 
him,  and  goes  and  hangs  himself. 


^  So,  in  substance,  Wieseler,  406;  Lichtenstein,  423;  McClellan. 


522  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  Vtl. 

Condemned  to  death  as  a  blasphemer,  Jesus  was  now  given 
up  by  the  council  to  the  abuse  of  His  captors  and  of  the  crowd ; 
and  cruel  personal  violence  was  added  to  most  contemptuous 
speech.  Salvador  {Jesus- Christ  et  sa  Doctrine)  denies  that  the 
council  would  have  permitted  Him  to  be  so  treated  in  its 
presence;  but  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  most  of  its  members 
cherished  the  most  bitter  and  vindictive  feelings  against  Him, 
and  in  their  fierce  fanaticism  thought  that  no  mercy  should 
be  shown  to  one  guilty  of  such  a  crime.  (Compare  Acts  xxiii. 
2.)  According  to  Matthew,  the  judges  themselves  seem  to  have 
taken  part  in  this  abuse ;  but  Luke  speaks  only  of  those  that  held 
Jesus. 

It  has  been  inferred  from  Matt  xxvii.  1  and  Mark  xv.  1, 
that  there  was  a  second  and  later  judicial  session  of  the  Sanhedrin 
than  that  at  which  Jesus  was  tried.'  Otliers  suppose  that  the  San- 
hedrin continued  its  session  after  the  trial  proper  had  ended,  per- 
haps with  a  brief  recess,  having  as  the  special  subject  of  consulta- 
tion how  the  sentence  pronounced  against  Jesus  could  be  carried 
into  effect.^  The  language  of  these  two  Evangelists  is  not 
decisive  as  to  the  point.  That  which  most  implies  a  new  and 
distinct  session  is  the  designation  of  time;  in  Matthew:  "When 
the  morning  v\^as  come,  npwiaq  le.  jEvo^ivrjQ,  all  the  chief  priests," 
etc.;  in  Mark:  "  And  straightway  in  the  morning,"  evdiiog  iiri  to 
npwi,  etc.  This  allusion  to  the  fact  that  it  was  morning,  seems  to 
have  some  special  significance,  and  may  refer  to  the  fact  that 
capital  cases  coixld  not  be  legally  tried  in  the  night;  and  hence  a 
morning  session  was  necessary.  "  Capital  cases  were  only  to 
be  handled  by  day."  ^  This  is  affirmed  by  Salvador  (quoted  by 
Greenleaf):  "  One  thing  is  certain,  that  the  council  met  again  on 
the  morning  of  the  next  day,  or  of  the  day  after,  as  the  law  re- 
quires, to  confirm  or  to  annul  the  sentence;  it  was  confirmed."  j 
Neither  Matthew  nor  Mark  states  that  the  place  of  session  had 
been  changed,  though  perhaps  their  language  may  intimate  a 
meeting  more  largely  attended.* 


1  Greswell,  iii.  302;  Friedlieb,  326;  Godet. 

*  Meyer,  Ellicott,  Lichtenstein. 

3  Lightfoot;  see  Friedlieb,  Archaol.,  95. 

*  Compare  Mark  xiv.  53  with  xv.  1,  in  the  latter  case,  "  the  whole  council "  being 
expressly  mentioned. 


Part  VII.]      FINAL   ACTION  OP   THE   SANHEDRIN.  523 

Our  decision  as  to  a  second  and  distinct  session  of  the  San- 
hedrin  will  mainly  depend  upon  the  place  we  give  to  the  account 
in  Luke  xxii.  66-71.  Is  this  examination  of  Jesus  identical 
with  that  first  session  of  Matt.  xxvi.  57-68,  and  of  Mark  xiv. 
53-65  ? '  Against  this  identity  are  some  strong  objections: 
1st.  The  mention  of  time  by  Luke:  "As  soon  as  it  was  day." 
This  corresponds  well  to  the  time  of  the  morning  session  of  Mat- 
thew and  Mark,  but  not  to  the  time  when  Jesus  was  first  led  be- 
fore the  Sanhedrin,  which  must  have  been  two  or  three  hours 
before  day.  2d.  The  place  of  meeting:  "  They  led  Him  into  their 
council,"  ai'tjyayoi'  avrov  tig  to  avficpioi'  tavrwy.  This  is  rendered 
by  some:  ''  They  led  Him  up  into  their  council  chamber,"  or  the 
place  where  they  usually  held  their  sessions.^  Whether  this  council 
chamber  was  the  room  Gazith  at  the  east  corner  of  the  court  of 
the  temple,  is  not  certain.  Lightfoot  (on  Matt.  xxvi.  3)  conjectures 
that  the  Sanhedrin  was  driven  from  this  its  accustomed  seat  half 
a  year  or  thereabout  before  the  death  of  Christ.  But  if  this 
were  so,  still  the  "  ThJenia',"  where  it  established  its  sessions, 
were  shops  near  the  gate  Shusan,  and  so  connected  with  the 
temple.  They  went  up  to  that  room  where  they  usually  met.^ 
3d.  The  dissimilarity  of  the  proceedings,  as  stated  by  Luke, 
which  shows  that  this  was  no  formal  trial.  There  is  here  no 
mention  of  witnesses  —  no  charges  brought  to  be  proved  against 
Him.  He  is  simply  asked  to  tell  them  if  He  is  the  Christ  ("  If 
thou  art  the  Christ,  tell  us,"  R.  V.);  and  this  seems  plainly  to 
point  to  the  result  of  the  former  session.  Then,  having  con- 
fessed Himself  to  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  He  was  con- 
demned to  death  for  blasphemy.  It  was  only  necessary  now 
that  He  repeat  this  confession,  and  hence  this  question  is  put 
directly  to  Him:  "Art  thou  the  Christ?  tell  us."  His  reply, 
"  If  I  tell  you,  ye  will  not 'believe;  and  if  I  also  ask  you,  ye  will 
not  answer  me,  nor  let  rae  go,"  points  backward  to  his  former 
confession.     To  His  reply  they  only  answer  by  asking,    "Art 


1  So  Meyer,  Alford,  Lichtenstein,  Ebrard,  Keil. 

*  See  Meyer,  in  loco;  Rob.,  Lex.,  Art.  <rvviSpiov:  here  "as  including  the  place  of 
meeting;  the  Sanhedrin  as  sitting  in  its  hall."    So  Keil,  McClellan. 

3  So  Kraft,  Greswell.  See,  however,  against  this,  John  xviii.  28,  which  implies 
that  Jesus  was  led,  not  from  the  temple,  but  from  the  palace  of  Caiaphas  to  Pilate.  This 
does  not  disprove  the  fact  of  a  second  session  of  the  Sanhedrin,  but  shows  that  it  was 
held  at  the  same  place  as  the  first. 


524  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR   LORD.  [Part   Vll. 

thou  tlien  the  Son  of  God  ? "  The  renewed  avowal  that  He 
is  the  Son  of  God,  heard  by  them  all  from  His  own  lips,  opens 
the  way  for  His  immediate  delivery  into  Pilate's  hands.' 
4th.  The  position  which  Luke  gives  (xxii.  63-G5)  to  the  insults 
and  abuse  heaped  upon  Jesus.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  they 
are  the  same  mentioned  by  Matthew  and  Mark  as  occurring 
immediately  after  the  sentence  had  been  first  pronounced. 

From  all  this  it  is  a  probable,  though  not  a  certain  conclusion, 
that  Luke  (xxii.  66-71)  refers  to  the  same  meeting  of  the  Sanhe- 
drin  mentioned  by  Matthew  (xxvii.  1)  and  Mark  (xv.  1),  and  re- 
lates, in  part,  what  then  too'^  place.  (Alford  thinks  that  Luke  has 
confused  things,  and  relates  as  happening  at  the  second  session 
what  really  happened  at  the  first.)  This  meeting  was,  then,  a 
morning  session  convened  to  ratify  formally  what  had  been  done 
before  with  haste  and  informality.  The  circumstances  under 
which  its  members  had  been  earlier  convened  at  the  palace  of 
Caiaphas,  sufficiently  show  that  the  legal  forms,  which  they  were 
so  scrupulous  in  observing,  had  not  been  complied  with.  The  law 
forbidding  capital  trials  in  the  night  had  been  broken;  the  place 
of  session  was  unusual,  if  not  illegal;  perhaps  the  attendance,  so 
early  after  midnight,  had  not  been  full.  On  these  accounts  it 
was  expedient  that  a  more  regular  and  legal  sitting  should  be 
held  as  early  in  the  morning  as  was  possible.  At  this  nothing  need 
be  done  but  to  hear  the  confession  of  Jesus,  to  pronounce  sentence, 
and  to  consult  in  what  manner  it  could  best  be  carried  into  effect; 
for,  although  they  had  condemned  Him,  they  had  no  power  to 
execute  the  sentence.  To  put  Jesus  to  death,  they  must  have  at 
least  the  assent  of  Pilate.  Their  plans  for  obtaining  this  will 
appear  &s  we  proceed.  Being  again  bound,  He  was  led  early  in 
the  morning  before  Pilate. 

There  are  two  points  connected  with  Judas  that  are  in  dis- 
pute: 1.  His  return  of  the  money  paid  him  for  his  treachery 
and  the  subsequent  use  of  it;     2.  The  manner  of  his  death. 

1.  As  soon  as  Judas  saw  that  the  Lord  was  condemned  by 
the  Sanhedrin,  probably  beholding  Him  as  they  led  Him  away 
to  Pilate,  he  repented  bitterly  of  his  treachery.  Taking  the 
money,  the  price  of  his  crime,  he  carried  it  back  to  the  chief 


1  See-Stier,  vii.  336;  Greswell,  iii.  204. 


Part  Vll.J      JUDAS   AND   THE   FIELD    OF   BLOOD.  525 

priests  and  elders,  confessing  his  sin  in  betraying  innocent  blood. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  them  all  assembled  together;  some 
acted  for  the  rest.  It  is  not  said  where  he  found  them,  whether 
at  the  palace  of  Caiaphas,  or  at  their  own  council  chamber,  or  at 
some  other  chamber  in  the  temple.  If  they  were  at  the  temple 
we  have  a  ready  explanation  of  the  fact  that  "  he  cast  down  the 
pieces  of  silver  in  the  temple  and  departed.'"  That  part  of  the 
temple  in  which  he  cast  them,  is  defined  as  Iv  rw  raw,  which, 
according  to  the  uniform  usage  of  the  term  in  the  Gospels,  can- 
not mean  any  thing  else  than  the  inner  court  or  holy  place,  and 
only  open  to  the  priests. '  Into  this  it  was  not  lawful  for  him  to 
enter,  but  he  could  approach  the  entrance  and  cast  the  silver 
within;  or,  perhaps  in  his  remorse  and  despair  forcing  his  way 
into  the  holy  place,  he  cast  it  down  at  the  feet  of  the  priests, 
who,  it  may  be,  were  there  preparing  to  offer  the  morning 
sacrifice. 

Probably  the  money  which  had  been  paid  to  Judas  had 
been  taken  from  the  treasury  of  the  temple,  and  the  priests  and 
elders,  unwilling  to  return  to  it  the  price  of  blood,  determined  to 
buy  a  field  to  bury  strangers  in.  Peter  (Acts  i.  18)  speaks  as  if 
Judas  had  himself  bought  it:  "  Now  this  man  purchased  a  field 
with  the  reward  of  iniquity."  Perhaps  he  may  be  here  under- 
stood as  speaking  rhetorically,  and  as  meaning  only  to  say  that 
the  field  was  bought,  not  by  Judas  in  person  but  with  his 
money,  the  wages  of  his  iniquity.^  If  so,  the  actual  purchase  of 
the  field  was  doubtless  made  after  the  Lord's  crucifixion,  as  the 
time  of  the  priests  and  elders  was  too  much  occupied  upon  that 
day  to  attend  to  such  a  transaction;  and  Matthew  narrates  it  as 
taking  place  before  the  crucifixion,  in  order  to  finish  all  that 
pertained  to  Judas.  Others  make  Judas  to  have  purchased  a 
field  before  his  death  with  part  of  the  money  he  had  received, 
and  in  this  field  to  have  hanged  himself;  in  this  case,  his  death  was 
probably  not  till  some  period  after  the  crucifixion.  Some  say  that 
the  priests  after  his  death,  with  the  remainder  of  the  money,  pur- 
chased another,^  and  thus  there  were  two  fields,  both  called  "  the 


1  See  Greswell,  iii.  219. 

2  Alexander,  in  loco\  Meyer  on  Acts  i.  18.    Trench  Synonyms,  sub  voce, 
8  See  Greswell,  iii.  220;  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  i.  15. 


K 


526  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

field  of  blood,"  Aceldama,  but  for  different  reasons:  one  as  bought 
with  the  price  of  blood,  the  other  as  the  place  where  Judas  hanged 
himself.  It  is  said  that  "  ecclesiastical  tradition  appears  from  the 
earliest  times  to  have  pointed  out  two  distinct  though  not  unva- 
rying spots  as  referred  to  in  the  two  accounts."  Early  travellers 
mention  Aceldama  as  distinct  from  the  spot  where  Judas  hanged 
himself.'  Maundrell  also  (468)  mentions  two  Aceldamas,  one  on 
the  west  side  of  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  and  another  on  the  east 
side  of  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  not  far  distant  from  Siloa.  To 
the  latter  Saewulf  (42)  refers  as  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Olivet,  a 
little  south  of  Gethsemane.  That  two  fields  are  referred  to  by 
the  Evangelists,  is  doubtful,  and  the  former  solution  of  the  dis- 
crepancy is  to  be  preferred. 

"The  field  of  blood"  is  still  pointed  out  in  the  eastern  part  of 
the  valley  of  Hinnom.  "  The  tradition  which  fixes  it  upon  this 
spot  reaches  back  to  the  age  of  Jerome,  and  it  is  mentioned  by 
almost  every  visitor  of  the  Holy  City  from  that  time  to  the  pres- 
ent day.  The  field  or  plat  is  not  now  marked  by  any  boundary 
to  distinguish  it  from  the  I'est  of  the  hillside."^  Hackett^  ob- 
serves: "  Tradition  has  placed  it  on  the  Hill  of  Evil  Counsel.  It 
may  have  been  in  that  quarter,  at  least,  for  the  field  belonged 
originally  to  a  potter,  and  argillaceous  clay  is  still  found  in  the 
neighborhood.  A  workman  in  a  pottery  which  I  visited  at  Je- 
rusalem, said  that  all  their  clay  was  obtained  from  the  hill 
over  the  valley  of  Hinnom."  A  charnel  house  now  in  ruins, 
built  over  a  cave  in  whose  deep  pit  are  a  few  bones  much 
decayed,  is  still  shown.  Some  would  identify  it  with  the  tomb 
of  Ananus  mentioned  by  Josephus.* 

2.  The  manner  of  his  death.  It  is  said  by  Matthew  that,  after 
he  had  cast  down  the  pieces  of  silver  into  the  temple,  he  departed 
and  went  and  hanged  himself.  It  is  not  said  whither  he  went, 
and,  so  far  as  here  stated,  the  place  of  his  death  may  have  been 
away  from  the  city.  Some  question  has  been  raised  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  term  an-Z/y^aro  —  "hanged  himself."  Grotius 
and  others  understand  it  of  a  natural  death,  but  one  brought 
about  by  agony  of  conscience  and  remorse.  But  the  great 
majority  of  interpreters  understand  it  of  a  death  by  hanging 


1  So  Maiindeville,  Early  Trav.,  175.  ^  m.  Scrip.,  267.     See  Baed.,  230. 

«  Robinson,  i.  354.  *  War,  v.  12.  3.    So  Barclay. 


Part  VII.]  MANNER  OF  JUDAS'  DEATH.  527 

In  the  Vulgate  :  Abiens  laqueo  se  suspendit.  (Lightfoot  insists  that 
he  was  strangled  by  the  devil.)  But  how  is  this  statement  to  be 
reconciled  with  that  of  Peter  (Acts  i.  18),  that,  "falling  head- 
long, he  burst  asunder  in  the  midst  —  cat  vprivrjQ  yevofuroc 
tXatcrjire  ^liaoQ  —  and  all  his  bowels  gushed  out  ?  "  De  Quincey  ' 
finds  here  only  a  figurative  statement  that  "  he  came  to  utter 
and  unmitigated  ruin,"  and  died  of  a  "broken  heart."  But  the 
language  is  obviously  to  be  taken  in  its  literal  sense  ;^  and  the 
bursting  asunder  of  Judas  may  readily  have  happened  after  he 
had  hung  himself.  Such  a  thing  as  the  breaking  of  a  cord  or  a 
beam  or  bough  of  a  tree  is  not  unusual ;  or,  at  the  moment  when 
the  body  was  about  to  be  taken  down,  it  may  by  accident  or 
carelessness  have  fallen.  Hackett,^  referring  to  a  suggestion 
that  he  may  have  hung  himself  upon  a  tree  overhanging  the 
valley  of  Hinnom,  says:  "For  myself,  I  felt,  as  I  stood  in  the 
valley  and  looked  up  to  the  rocky  terraces  which  hang  over  it, 
that  the  proposed  explanation  was  a  perfectly  natural  one.  I 
was  more  than  ever  satisfied  with  it."  He  found  the  precipice, 
by  measurement,  to  be  from  twenty-five  to  forty  feet  in  height, 
with  olive  trees  growing  near  the  edges  and  a  rocky  pavement 
at  the  bottom,  so  that  a  person  who  fell  from  above  would  prob- 
ably be  crushed  and  mangled  as  well  as  killed.  ^ 

Meyer  finds  proof  that  Matthew,  in  his  statement  that  Judas 
"  hanged  himself,"  and  Luke,  in  his  report  of  Peter's  statement 
that  he  "burst  asunder,"  followed  different  traditions,  in  the  fact 
that  as  self-murder  was  very  unusual  among  the  Jews,  Peter 
could  not  have  passed  it  by  in  silence.  But,  as  the  falling  and 
bursting  asunder  were  subsequent  to  the  hanging,  and  presup- 
posed it ;  and  as  the  event  had  taken  place  but  a  few  days  before, 
and  was  well  known  to  all  present,  there  was  no  necessity  that 
he  should  give  all  the  details;  especially  as  his  purpose  was  to 
admonish  the  apostles  by  this  fearful  judgment  to  use  all  caution 
in  the  nomination  of  his  successor. 

Matthew  refers  to  the  purchase  of  the  field  as  the  fulfillment 


1  Essay  upon  Judas  Iscariot. 

2  Meyer,  in  loco.  3  m.  Scrip.,  266. 

*  As  to  the  various  traditional  accounts  of  Judas'  death,  see  Hofmann's  Leben 
Jesu,  .333.  Bynaeus  (ii.  431)  gives  a  full  statement  of  the  various  opinions  up  to  his  day. 
Arculf  (Early  Travels.  4),  A.  D.  700,  speaks  of  being  shown  the  large  fig  tree  from  the  top 
of  which  Judas  suspended  himself. 


528  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

of  a  prediction  of  Jeremy  the  prophet.  Many  recent  writers 
find  here  an  error  of  reference,  the  passage  being  found  in  Zech- 
ariah  (xi.  12,  13).  For  the  solutions  we  must  refer  to  the  com- 
mentators. "  The  simplest  explanation,"  says  Riddle,  "is  that 
the  name  '  Jeremiah '  is  applied  to  the  whole  book  of  the  proph- 
ets, since  the  Jews  placed  that  prophet  first." 

Our  purpose  does  not  lead  us  to  inquire  into  the  motives  that 
impelled  Judas  to  betray  his  Lord.  The  theory,  however,  advo- 
cated by  many,'  that,  sharing  the  general  Jewish  expectations  as 
to  the  Messianic  kingdom,  and  fully  believing  Jesus  to  be  the 
Messiah,  he  had  no  intention  of  imperilling  His  life,  but  wished 
only  to  arouse  Him  to  direct  and  positive  action,  cannot  be  sus- 
tained. If,  knowing  the  supernatural  powers  of  Jesus,  he  had 
no  fears  that  He  could  suffer  evil  from  the  hands  of  His  enemies, 
and  delivered  Him  into  the  power  of  the  Jewish  authorities  in 
order  that  He  might  be  forced  to  assert  His  Messianic  claims, 
why  should  he  bargain  with  them  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver? 
He  could  in  many  ways  have  accomplished  this  end,  without 
taking  the  attitude  of  a  traitor.  The  statements  of  the  Evangel- 
ists about  his  covenant  with  the  chief  priests,  his  conduct  at  the 
arrest,  his  return  of  the  money,  the  words  of  Peter  respecting 
him,  and  especially  the  words  of  the  Lord,  "  Good  were  it  for 
that  man  if  he  had  never  been  born,"  conclusively  show  that  he 
sinned,  not  through  a  mere  error  of  judgment  while  at  heart 
hoping  to  advance  the  interests  of  his  Master,  but  with  deliber. 
ate  perfidy,  designing  to  compass  His  ruin.^ 

Friday  Morning,  15th  Nisan,  7th  April,  783. 
A.D.  30. 

The  members  of  the  Sauhedrin  who  lead  Jesus  to    John  xvlii.  28-33. 
Pilate  refuse  to  enter  the  judgment  hall  lest  they  be  de- 
filed; and  thereupon  he  comes  out  to  them  and  asks  the 
nature  of  the  accusation.     They  charge  Him  with  being  a 
malefactor,  and  Pilate  directs  them  to  take  Him  and  judge 
Him  themselves.     As  they  cannot  inflict  a  capital  punish-    Luke  xxiii.  2-4. 
ment,  they  bring  the  charge  of  sedition;  and  Pilate,  re-    Mark  xv.  2. 
entering  the  judgment  hall  and  calling  Jesus,  examines    John  xviii.  33-38. 
Him  as  to  His  Messianic  claims.  Satisfied  that  He  is  inno-    Matt,  xxvii.  11. 


'  De  Quincey,  Whately. 

*  See  Winer,  i.  635:  Ebrard,  524;  Christian  Review,  July,  1855;  Langen,  44 


Part  VII. J        THE    LORD    LED    BEFORE   PILATE. 


539 


cent,  Pilate  goes  out  andaflirras  that  he  finds  no  fault  in 
Him.  The  Jews  renewing  their  accusations,  to  which 
Jesus  makes  no  reply,  aud  mentioning  Galilee,  Pilate 
sends  Him  to  Herod,  who  was  then  at  Jerusalem;  but 
Jesus  refuses  to  answer  his  questions,  and  is  sent  back  to 
Pilate.  The  latter  now  resorts  to  another  expedient.  He 
seats  himself  upon  the  judgment  seat,  aud,  calling  the 
chief  priests  and  elders,  declares  to  them  that  neither 
himself  nor  Herod  has  found  any  fault  in  Him.  Accord- 
ing to  custom,  he  will  release  Him.  But  the  multitude 
beginning  to  cry  that  he  should  release  Barabbas  not 
Jesus,  he  leaves  it  to  their  choice.  During  the  interval 
while  the  people  are  making  their  choice,  his  wife  sends 
to  him  a  message  of  warning.  The  people,  persuaded  by 
the  priest  and  elders,  reject  Jesus  and  choose  Barabbas, 
and  Pilate  in  vain  makes  several  efforts  to  change  their 
decision.  At  last  he  gives  orders  that  Jesus  be  scourged 
previous  to  crucifixion.  This  is  done  by  the  soldiers  with 
mockery  and  abuse;  and  Pilate,  going  forth,  again  takes 
Jesus  and  presents  Him  to  the  people.  The  Jews  con- 
tinue to  demand  His  death,  but  uj^on  the  ground  that  He 
made  Himself  the  Son  of  God.  Terrified  at  this  new 
charge,  Pilate  again  takes  Jesus  into  the  hall  to  question 
Him  but  receives  no  answer.  Pilate  still  strives  earnestly  to 
save  Him,  but  is  met  by  the  cry  that  he  is  Caesar's  enemy. 
Yielding  to  fear,  he  ascends  the  tribunal,  and,  calling  for 
water,  washes  his  hands  in  token  of  his  own  innocence,  and 
then  gives  directions  that  He  be  taken  away  and  crucified. 
As  He  comes  forth,  he  presents  Him  to  them  as  their 
King.  They  cry  "  Crucify  Him,  Crucify  Him,,'  and  He  is 
led  away  to  the  place  of  crucifixion. 

The  time  when  the  Lord  was  taken  before  Pilate  cannot  be 
exactly  defined.  There  are  two  sources  of  information;  Roman 
usage,  and  the  statements  of  the  Evangelists.  As  a  rule,  the 
Roman  courts  did  not  open  before  sunrise,  nor  was  judgment 
pronounced  till  after  six  o'clock  a.  m.  The  Evangelists  give 
only  general  notices  of  the  time:  Matthew,  "when  the  morning 
was  come";  Mark,  ''And  straightway  in  the  morning";  John, 
"and  it  was  early."  All  ^^se  the  same  designation  of  time, 
vrpwtu  or  Trpwt,  which  may  include  all  the  time  from  3  to  6  a.  m. 
In  this  indefiniteness  much  room  is  given  to  difference  of  opinion. 
Lichtenstein  and  M.  and  M.  put  the  leading  of  the  Lord  to 
Pilate  soon  after  3  o'clock;  but  most  later  —  Ewald,  an  hour 
oefore  sunrise;  McClellan,  Jones,  a  little  before  sunrise;  Farrar, 
later,  about  7.     Those  who  put  it  before  sunrise,  suppose  that 


Matt,  xxvii.  12-14. 
Mark  xv.  3-5. 
Luke  xxiii.  5-12. 

Matt,  xxvii.  15-18. 
Mark  xv.  6-10. 
Luke   xxiii.  13-17. 

John  xviii.  39,  40. 

Matt,  xxvii.  19. 

Matt,  xxvii.  30-23. 
Mark  xv.  11-14. 
Luke  xxiii.  18-25. 
Matt,  xxvii.  26-30. 
Mark  xv.  15-19. 
John  xix.  1-4. 
John  xix.  5-12. 


Matt,  xxvii.  24-25. 
John  xix.  13-16. 


530  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

Pilate,  having  been  told  that  a  noted  prisoner  would  be  brought 
before  him,  took  his  judicial  seat  before  the  usual  hour. 

It  IS  not  easily  determined  whether  the  Praetorium  or  judg- 
ment hall,  to  which  Jesus  was  taken,  was  in  the  palace  of  Herod 
the  Great,  and  then  occupied  by  Pilate,  or  in  the  fortress 
Antonia,  or  in  a  palace  near  it.  That  the  Roman  governors 
sometimes  used  Herod's  palace  as  headquarters,  appears  from 
Joseph  us,  where  Florus  is  said  to  have  done  so;  and  afterward 
mention  is  made  of  his  leading  out  the  troops  from  the  royal 
residence'.  The  palace  of  Herod  at  Caesarea  was  used  in  like 
manner  (Acts  xxiii.  35).  The  palace  at  Jerusalem  was  situated  on 
the  north  side  of  Mount  Sion,  and  was  a  magnificent  building  of 
marble,  with  which,  according  to  Josephus,  the  temple  itself  bore 
no  comparison.''  It  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  palace  of  Solo- 
mon, which  was  lower  down  on  the  side  of  the  mount,  and  near 
the  temple,  and  whei'e  Agrippa  afterward  built.^  That  it  was 
used  by  Pilate  when  he  visited  Jerusalem  is  very  probable.'' 
Those  who  place  the  judgment  hall  at  the  fortress  Antonia  refer 
in  proof  to  John  xix.  13,  where  it  is  said  that  Pilate  "sat  down 
in  the  judgment  seat,  in  a  place  that  is  called  the  Pavement, 
but  in  the  Hebrew,  Gabbatha."*  This  Pavement  is  supposed  to 
have  been  between  the  fortress  Antonia  and  the  western  portico 
of  the  temple,  and  identical  with  that  mentioned  by  Josephus.® 
Pilate  was  thus  sitting  upon  the  highest  point  of  the  large  temple 
area,  where  what  he  did  was  plainly  visible  to  all  present.  But 
the  fact  that  the  outer  court  of  the  temple  was  "  paved  through- 
out "  ■^  does  by  no  means  show  that  Pilate  here  erected  his 
tribunal.  Lightfoot  (m  loco)  argues  at  some  length  to  show 
that  this  Pavement  was  the  room  Gazith  in  the  temple,  where 
the  Sanhedrin  sat,  and  that  as  the  Jews  would  not  go  to  Pilate's 
judgment  hall,  he  went  to  theirs.  But  Greswell  observes  that 
"  to  suppose  that  the  tribunal  of  Pilate  could  have  been 
placed  in  any  court  of   the  temple,  either  would  be  palpably 


»  War,  ii.  14.  8;  ii.  15.  5. 
»  War,  i.  21.  1;  v.  4.  4. 
'  Josephus,  Antiq.,  viii.  5.  2;  xx.  8. 11. 

*  So  Meyer,  Winer,  Alford,  Friedlieb,  Lewin.    Ewald  (v.  14)  supposes  this  palace 
to  have  been  reserved  for  the  use  of  Herod's  heirs,  when  they  came  to  the  capital. 
6  Wieseler,  407;  T.  G.  Lex.,  Gabbatha. 
0  War,  vi.  1.  8;  and  vi.  3.  2. 
'  JoBsphuB,  War,  v.  5.  2. 


Fart  VII.]  THE  TRIAL  BEFORE   PILATE.  531 

absurd."  We  must  then  conclude,  that  this  Pavement  was 
a  movable  one,  like  that  which  Suetonius  mentions  when  he 
says  that  Julius  Caesar  took  with  him  pieces  of  marble  ready 
fitted  that  they  might  be  laid  down  at  any  place,  and  the  judg- 
ment seat  be  placed  upon  them;  or,  which  is  more  probable,  that 
it  was  the  open  paved  space  before  the  palace  of  Herod.  (So 
Riehm,  624.)  The  latter  view  is  confirmed  by  Josephus,'  for 
Florus,  when  he  had  fixed  his  quarters  in  the  palace,  erected 
his  tribunal  in  front  of  it,  and  there  gathered  the  chief  men  of 
the  city  before  him.  The  judge  seems  to  have  been  at  liberty 
to  place  his  tribunal  where  he  pleased,  and  Pilate  on  one  occasion 
did  so  in  the  great  circus."  We  consider  it  then  most  probable 
that  all  the  judicial  proceedings  before  Pilate  were  at  the  palace 
of  Herod  upon  Mount  Sion.^ 

Pilate,  being  informed  that  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  had 
brought  a  criminal  before  him,  and  of  their  unwillingness  to  enter 
the  palace,  goes  out  to  meet  them.  The  ground  of  their  unwill- 
ingness has  been  already  considered.  It  was  plainly  the  purpose 
of  the  priests  and  elders  to  obtain  at  once  from  Pilate  a  confirm- 
ation of  their  sentence,  without  stating  the  grounds  upon  which 
He  had  been  condemned;  but  this  plan  was  wholly  baffled  by  his 
question:  "What  accusation  bring  ye  against  this  man?' 
Whether  Pilate  asked  this  question  from  a  sense  of  justice,  not 
thinking  it  right  to  condemn  any  man  to  death  without  knowing 
his  offense;  or  whether  he  already  knew  who  the  prisoner  was, 
and  that  He  had  been  condemned  upon  ecclesiastical  grounds, 
we  cannot  determine.  We  can  scarce  doubt,  however,  that  he 
had  some  knowledge  of  Jesus,  of  His  teaching,  works,  and 
character.  Without  troubling  himself  about  ecclesiastical  ques- 
tions, he  would  closely  watch  all  popular  movements;  and  he 
could  not  overlook  a  man  who  had  excited  so  much  of  public  atten- 
tion. If,  as  is  most  probable,  he  was  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time 
of  the  Lord's  public  entry,   he  must  have  heard  how  He  was 


1  War,  ii.  14.  8.    See  T.  G.  Lex.,  where  it  is  denied  to  be  portable. 

2  Josephus,  War,  ii.  9.  3. 

8  Winer,  ii.  29;  Greswell,  iil.  22.5;  Tobler,  Top.,  i.  222.  Many,  however,  place  the 
judgment  hall  in  the  castle  Antonia;  so  Williams,  Barclay,  Godet,  M.  and  M.  Langen 
thinks  that  Pilate  was  at  this  time  at  Antonia,  though  the  Procurators  sometimes  occupied 
Herod's  palace.  The  point  is  of  interest  only  in  its  bearings  on  the  site  of  the  sepulchre, 
and  the  direction  of  the  Via  Dolorosa, 


532  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

hailed  by  the  multitude  as  King  of  the  Jews;  and  the  fact  that 
he  placed  a  part  of  the  Roman  cohort  at  the  disposal  of  the 
priests  when  about  to  arrest  Him,  shows  that  they  must  have 
communicated  to  him  their  design.  Some,  however,  think  that 
Pilate  would  not  have  asked  them  the  question  about  the  nature 
of  His  offense,  if  he  had  the  evening  before  placed  his  soldiers 
a'  their  service  to  aid  in  the  arrest.  (See  Baumlein  on  John 
xviii.  3.)  It  is  possible  that  this  was  the  act  of  the  commander 
of  the  cohort  without  the  knowledge  of  Pilate.  But,  however 
this  may  have  been,  it  is  plain  that  he  was  by  no  means  dis- 
posed to  be  a  mere  tool  in  the  hands  of  the  priests  and  elders  to 
execute  their  revengeful  plans.  Vexed  at  his  question,  they  re- 
ply, almost  contemptuously:  "  If  He  were  not  a  malefactor,  we 
would  not  have  delivered  Him  up  unto  thee."  It  is  as  if  they 
had  said:  '  We  have  tried  Him,  and  found  Him  to  be  a  male- 
factor; there  is  no  need  of  any  further  judicial  examination. 
Rely  upon  us  that  He  is  guilty,  and  give  us  without  more  delay 
the  power  to  punish  Him.' 

It  is  not  certain  what  force  is  to  be  given  to  the  word, 
"malefactor,"'  but  apparently  His  accusers  design  to  designate 
Jesus  as  one  who  had  broken  the  civil  laws,  and  therefore  was 
amenable  to  the  civil  tribunals.  By  the  use  of  this  general 
term  they  conceal  the  nature  of  His  offense,  which  was  purely 
ecclesiastical.  They  had  condemned  Him  for  blasphemy.  But 
for  this  Pilate  would  not  put  Him  to  death  —  probably  he  would 
not  entertain  the  case  at  all;  and,  as  they  knew  not  what  other 
crime  to  lay  to  His  charge,  they  present  Him  as  a  malefactor. 
This  vague  and  artful  reply  displeases  Pilate,  who  is,  beside, 
touched  by  the  cool  effrontery  of  the  council  in  demanding  that 
he  shall,  without  examination,  ratify  their  sentence;  and  he  an- 
swers tartly:  "Take  ye  Him  and  judge  Him  according  to  your 
law."  It  IS  as  if  He  had  said:  If  you  can  judge,  you  can  also 
execute;  but  if  I  execute,  I  shall  also  judge.  This  answer  forces 
them  to  confess  that  they  have  no  power  to  put  Him  to  death; 
and  shows  them  that,  if  they  would  accomplish  their  purpose, 
they  must  bring  some  direct  and  definite  charge,  and  one  of 
.which  Pilate  would  take  cognizance.     They  therefore  now  begin 


'  KoKov  TToiwf ,  Tischendorf,  Alford,  W.  and  H. 


Fart    VII.]  JESUS   SENT   To   HEROD.  633 

to  accuse  him  of  perverting  the  nation,  of  forbidding  to  give 
tribute  to  Caesar,  and  of  saying  that  He  Himself  was  Christ,  a 
Jiing  (Luke  xxiii.  2).  Tliese  were  very  serious  accusations,  be- 
cause directly  affectmg  Roman  authority,  and  such  as  Pilate  was 
bound  to  hear  and  judge. 

Up  to  this  time  the  accusers  of  Jesus  and  Pilate  had  been 
standing  without  the  Pra3torium.  According  to  Roman  law,  the 
examination  might  take  place  within  the  Praetorium,  but  the 
sentence  must  be  pronounced  in  public  without.  Entering  it, 
Pilate  calls  Jesus  and  demands  of  Him,  "  Art  thou  the  King  of 
the  Jews?"  The  Synoptists  give  simply  this  reply:  "Thou 
sayest,"  or  "  I  am  ";  but  John  relates  the  reply  in  full,  in  which 
Jesus  describes  the  nature  of  His  kingdom  (xviii.  33-38).  The 
effect  of  this  conversation  upon  Pilate  was  very  great.  He 
saw  at  once  that  Jesus  was  no  vulgar  inciter  of  sedition,  no 
ambitious  demagogue  or  fanatical  zealot,  and  that  the  kingdom 
of  which  He  avowed  Himself  to  be  the  king,  was  one  of  truth 
and  not  of  foi'ce.  At  worst.  He  was  only  a  religious  enthusiast, 
from  whose  pretensions  Cassar  could  have  nothing  to  fear;  and  he 
determines  to  save  Him,  if  possiljle,  from  the  hands  of  His 
enemies.  Taking  Jesus  with  Him,  he  goes  out  and  declares  to 
them  that  he  finds  no  fault  in  Plim.  This,  probably  unexpected, 
exculpation  on  his  part  only  makes  them  "the  more  fierce,"  and 
they  renew  the  charge  that  He  stirreth  up  the  people  throughout 
all  Judaea  and  Galilee,  and  even  to  Jerusalem  (Luke  xxiii.  5). 
Mark  (xv.  3)  says:  "And  the  chief  priests  accused  Him  of  many 
things."  Galilee  may  have  been  thus  mentioned  because  the 
Galilseans  were  prone  to  sedition.  To  all  these  accusations 
Jesus  answers  nothing,  so  that  His  silence  makes  even  Pilate  to 
marvel.  The  incidental  mention  of  Galilee  suggests  to  the 
governor  that  he  might  relieve  himself  from  responsibility  by 
sending  Him  to  Herod  Antipas,  who  was  then  in  the  city,  and  unto 
whose  jurisdiction,  as  a  Galilaean,  Jesus  rightfully  belonged.  He 
accordingly  sends  Him  to  Herod,-and  hopes  that  he  is  now  quit  of 
the  matter;  or,  if  Herod  should  decline  jurisdiction,  that  he 
would  express  some  opinion  as  to  his  guilt  or  innocence.  The 
chief  priests  and  scribes  follow  Him,  that  they  may  renew  their 
accusations  before  the  new  judge. 


534  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIL 

By  Herod  the  Lord  was  gladly  received,  as  he  had  long 
desired  to  see  Him,  and  hoped  that  He  would  now  work  some 
miracle  before  him.  But  to  all  the  king's  questions  He  an- 
swered nothing,  nor  did  He  reply  to  the  accusations  of  His 
enemies.  Angry  at  His  continued  silence,  and  doubtless  inter- 
preting it  as  a  sign  of  contempt,  Herod  and  his  soldiers  mock 
Him  with  pretended  homage,  and,  clothing  Him  in  a  gorgeous 
robe,  send  Him  back  to  Pilate.'  His  return  so  attired  was  a 
very  intelligible  sign  to  Pilate  that  Herod,  who  from  his  position 
must  have  known  His  history,  had  no  knowledge  of  any  seditious 
practices  in  Galilee,  and  regarded  Him  as  a  harmless  man, 
whose  Messianic  pretensions  were  rather  to  be  ridiculed  than 
severely  punished.  This  sending  of  Jesus  by  Pilate  to  Herod 
was  understood  by  the  latter,  and  probably  designed  by  the 
former,  as  a  mark  of  respect  and  good-will;  and  was  the  means 
of  restoring  friendship  between  them,  which  had  been  broken, 
perhaps  by  some  question  of  conflicting  jurisdiction.''  Where 
Herod  took  up  his  residence  when  in  the  city,  is  not  known.  If 
Pilate  occupied  the  fortress  Antonia,  Herod  would  doubtless  oc- 
cupy his  father's  palace.  It  is  not  probable  that  both  occupied 
the  latter  together,  as  some  suppose.^  Possibly  he  now  made  his 
abode  at  the  old  palace  of  the  Maccabees.*  In  either  case,  the 
distance  was  not  great,  and  but  little  time  was  spent  in  going  to 
and  returning  from  Herod. 

After  Jesus  was  brought  back  to  Pilate,  the  latter  calls 
together  "  the  chief  priests  and  the  rulers  and  the  people " 
(Luke  xxiii.  13).  He  now  designs  to  pronounce  Him  innocent 
and  end  the  trial,  and  therefore  seats  himself  upon  his  judgment 
seat  (Matt,  xxvii.  19).  There  was  a  custom  that  at  this  feast  a 
prisoner  chosen  by  the  people  should  be  released  from  punish- 
ment. As  to  the  origin  of  this  custom,  nothing  definite  is  known. 
From  the  language  of  the    Synoptists  —  nard  kopTfiv  —  it  has 


1  Some  would  make  tliis  a  white  rohe,  such  as  candidates  for  office  were  accustomed 
to  wear,  and  chieftains  when  they  went  into  battle.  Thus  robed,  He  appeared  as  a  can- 
didate for  the  honor  of  the  king  of  the  Jews.  So  Priedlieb,  Archaol.,  109:  Langen; 
Riggenbach  makes  it  the  white  vestment  of  the  priest;  C07itra,  Meyer;  in  Vulgate,  teste 
alba. 

2  Some  would  trace  the  origin  of  this  quarrel  to  the  incident  mentioned  by  Luke 
xill.  1.     Sec  Greswell,  iii.  26. 

3  Lichtenstein,  4;32. 

*  Josephus,  Anliq.,  xx.  8.  11. 


Part  VII.]  JESUS   AND    BARABBAS.  535 

been  inferred  tliat  at  each  of  the  feasts  a  prisoner  was  released.' 
John,  however,  confines  it  to  the  Passover,  and  it  might  have 
had  some  special  reference  to  the  release  of  the  people  from 
Egyptian  bondage.  No  traces  of  it  are  to  be  found  in  later  Jew- 
ish writings.  It  may  possibly  have  been  established  by  the 
Romans  as  a  matter  of  policy,  but  more  probably  it  was  of  Jew- 
ish origin  and  continued  by  the  Roman  governors.^  Whether 
Pilate  had  this  custom  in  mind  when  he  took  his  seat  upon  the 
tribunal,  is  not  certain;  but  his  words  (Luke  xxiii.  16)  strongly 
imply  this,  as  does  also  the  fact  that  he  had  gathered  the  people 
together  with  the  chief  priests  and  rulers.  Ascending  the  tri- 
bunal, he  formally  declares  that,  having  examined  Jesus,  he  had 
found  no  fault  in  Him,  neither  had  Herod,  to  whom  he  had 
sent  Him ;  and  after  chastising  Him  he  will  therefore  release 
Him.  It  seems  from  the  scope  of  the  narrative  that  he  intended 
to  chastise  Jesus,  thus  to  propitiate  the  priests,  and  then  to  re- 
lease Him  under  the  custom  without  further  consulting  the  peo- 
ple. In  this  way,  apparently,  Pilate  thought  to  satisfy  all:  the 
people,  by  releasing  Him ;  the  priests  and  elders,  by  chastising 
Him ;  and  himself,  by  delivering  Him  from  death.  But  he  sat- 
isfied none.  The  people,  reminded  of  their  claim,  began  to 
clamor  for  it;  but  they  did  not  demand  that  Jesus  should  be  re- 
leased. To  satisfy  the  priests  and  rulers  His  chastisement  was 
far  too  light  a  punishment.  The  cry  is  raised,  "  Away  with  this 
man,  and  release  unto  us  Barabbas."  Pilate,  who  knew  how  well 
affected  the  people  at  large  had  been  to  Jesus,  cannot  believe 
that  they  will  reject  Him  and  choose  Barabbas;  and  he  therefore 
accepts  the  alternative,  and  leaves  them  to  elect  between  the  two. 
Of  this  Barabbas,  son  of  Abbas,  little  is  known.  According 
to  some  authorities,  the  true  reading  (Matt,  xxvii.  16,  17)  is 
Jesus  Barabbas.^  Prom  the  statements  of  the  Evangelists  re- 
specting him,  it  appears  that  he  was  one  of  that  numerous  and 
constantly  growing  party  who  detested  the  Roman  rule,  and 
who  afterward  gained  such  notoriety  as  the  Zealots.  In  com- 
pany with  others,  he  had  stirred  up  an  Insurrection  in  the  city, 
and  had  committed  murder  (Mark  xv.  7;  Luke  xxiii.  19).    John 


1  Friedlieb,  Archaol.,  110. 

2  Winer,  ii.  203;  Hofmann,  360. 

3  So  Meyer,  Ewald;  and  formerly,  Tischendorf;  contra,  Alford,  W.  and  H. 


53C  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIT. 

speaks  of  him  as  a  roLber  also;  Imt  this  crime  was  too  common 
to  attract  much  attention  or  bring  upon  its  perpetrator  much 
odium.  Josephus,'  speaking  of  Florus,  says  that  "he  did  all 
but  proclaim  throughout  the  country  that  every  one  was  at  lib- 
erty to  rob,  provided  he  might  share  in  the  plunder."  It  is  re- 
markable that  Barabbas  was  confessedly  guilty  of  the  very  crime 
with  which  the  priests  and  rulers  had  falsely  charged  Jesus  — 
that  of  sedition;  and  no  plainer  proof  of  their  hypocrisy  could 
be  given  to  the  watchful  Pilate  than  their  efforts  to  release  the 
former  and  to  condemn  the  latter.  And  this  result  it  was  easy  for 
them  to  effect;  for  the  tide  of  popular  feeling  ran  very  strong  in 
favor  of  national  independence,  and  one  who  had  risen  up  against 
the  Romans  and  had  shed  blood  in  the  attempt,  was  deemed 
rather  a  hero  and  a  patriot  than  a  murderer.  On  the  other 
hand,  Jesus,  so  far  from  encouraging  the  rising  enmity  to 
Roman  rule,  had  always  inculcated  obedience  and  submission  — 
teachings  ever  unpalatable  to  a  subject  nation.  It  is  probable, 
too,  that  most  of  those  present  were  citizens  of  Jerusalem 
rather  than  pilgrims  from  other  parts  of  the  land;  and,  if 
there  were  some  from  Galilee,  that  they  did  not  dare,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  rulers,  to  express  openly  their  wishes. 

While  waiting  for  the  people  to  come  to  a  decision,  he  re- 
ceives the  message  from  his  wife  mentioned  by  Matthew  (xxvii.  19). 
Nothing  is  known  of  her  but  her  name,  which  tradition  gives  as 
Procla,  or  Claudia  Procula.''  This  dream  was  generally  regarded 
by  the  fathers  as  supernatural,  and  by  most  ascribed  to  God,  but 
by  some  to  Satan  who  wished  to  hinder  the  Lord's  death.'  This 
message  would  naturally  tend  to  make  Pilate  more  anxious  to 
release  "that  just  man,"  even  if  he  did  not  ascribe  to  the  dream 
a  divine  origin.'' 

The  Synoptists  agree  that  Pilate  made  three  several  attempts 
to  persuade  the  people  to  release  Jesus,  though  the  order  of  the 
attempts  is  not  the  same  in  all.  The  events  may  be  thus 
arranged:    Pilate  presents   to    the    people   the    two,    Jesus    and 


»  War,  ii.  14.  2. 

2  Winer,  ii.  2fi2;  Ilofmann,  3-10.  ^  Sec  Jones,  Notes,  359. 

*  Lewin  (12!))  finds  in  this  circumstance  a  proof  tliat  tlie  locality  was  Pilate's  ordi- 
nary residence,  the  palace  of  Ilerod;  and  that  the  charge  against  Jesus  was  biought  at  so 
early  an  hour  that  he  was  aroused  from  his  slumbers  to  hear  it. 


Part    VII.]        THE    PEOPLE    CHOOSE   BARABBAS.  537 

Barabbas,  between  whom  they  are  to  choose.  A  little  interval 
follows,  during  which  he  receives  his  wife's  message.  He  now 
formally  asks  the  people  whom  they  wished  to  have  released 
(Matt,  xxvii.  21;  Mark  xv.  9;  Luke  xxiii.  16-18).  They  answer, 
Barabbas.  Pilate,  hoping  that  by  changing  the  form  of  the 
question  he  could  obtain  an  answer  more  in  accordance  with  his 
wishes,  says:  "  What  shall  I  do  then  with  Jesus  which  is  called 
Christ?"  (Matt,  xxvii.  22;  Mark  xv.  12.  Luke  xxiii.  20  does 
not  give  the  question ;  but  the  answer  shows  that  it  must  have 
been  the  same  as  in  Matthew  arid  Mark.)  To  this  they  reply, 
"Let  Him  be  crucified."  Alexander  (on  Mark  xv.  13)  suggests 
that  the  cry  "Crucify  Him"  arose  from  the  fact  that,  as 
Barabbas  by  the  Roman  law  would  have  been  crucified,  Jesus 
should  now  stand  m  his  stead  and  bear  his  punishment.  Bynaeus 
(iii.  118)  explains  it  on  the  ground  that  crucifixion  was  the  usual 
punishment  of  sedition,  of  which  He  was  accused.  But  we  can 
scarce  doubt  that  it  was  first  raised  by  the  Sanhedrists,  who 
through  this  punishment  would  both  gratify  their  own  hatred  and 
better  cast  the  responsibility  of  His  death  on  the  Romans.  Pi- 
late now  sees  that  not  only  do  the  people  reject  Jesus,  but  that 
they  insist  upon  the  most  severe  and  ignominious  punishment. 
He  had  proposed  chastisement;  they  call  for  crucifixion.  He 
had  not  anticipated  this,  and  will  reason  with  them.  He  there- 
fore asks:  "Why,  what  evil  hath  He  done?"  (Matt,  xxvii.  23; 
Mark  xv.  14).  Luke  (xxiii.  22)  adds:  "  I  have  found  no  cause 
of  death  in  Him,  I  will  therefore  chastise  Him  and  let  Him  go." 
This  judicial  declaration  of  His  innocence  and  attempt  to  substi- 
tute the  milder  punishment,  only  cause  the  people  to  cry  out  the 
louder,  "  Let  Him  be  crucified." 

John  (xviii.  39,  40)  sums  up  the  narrative  very  briefly,  and 
gives  no  details.  He  omits  the  sending  to  Herod  and  states  only 
the  result  of  the  popular  choice. 

The  great  and  rapid  change  in  public  feeling  in  regard  to 
Jesus  which  four  or  five  days  had  brought,  would  appear  incred- 
ible did  we  not  find  many  analogous  cases  in  history.  The 
thoughtlessness  and  fickleness  that  characterize  a  populace  are 
proverbial.  Besides,  we  here  find  special  causes  in  operation  to 
bring  about  this  change.     The  multitude  that  shouted  "  Hosanna 

23* 


538  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIL 

to  the  Son  of  David  "  on  the  day  of  His  triumphal  entry,  doubt- 
less expected  that  He  would  immediately  assert  His  kingly 
claims,  and  take  a  position  before  the  public  corresponding  to 
His  high  dignity.  But  so  far  from  this.  He  reappears  the  next 
day,  not  as  a  prince  but  as  a  teacher;  He  does  nothing  answer- 
ing to  their  expectations;  He  passes  much  of  His  time  in  seclu- 
sion at  Bethany,  and  the  excitement  of  His  entry  dies  away. 
Still,  He  has  a  powerful  hold  on  the  popular  mind  as  a  prophet 
and  worker  of  miracles;  and  this  is  recognized  by  the  rulers  in 
the  manner  in  which  they  effect  His  arrest,  and  the  haste  with 
which  they  press  on  the  trial.  But  He  puts  forth  no  miraculous 
power  against  His  enemies;  He  offers  no  resistance;  He  is 
insulted  and  grossly  abused,  and  complains  not.  How  were 
they  mistaken  in  thinking  that  He  could  be  the  Messiah,  and 
fulfill  the  national  hopes,  and  overcome  the  resolute  Roman  ! 
But  it  was  His  conviction  as  a  blasphemer  that  turned  the  heart 
of  the  people  against  Him.  The  chief  priests,  the  elders,  the 
scribes,  all  those  in  whom  they  trusted  and  who  guided  public 
opinion,  were  busy  in  declaring  that  He  had  blasphemed  in  the 
presence  of  the  whole  Sanhedrin.  He  assumed  to  be  something 
more  than  the  Messiah  whom  they  expected  —  to  be  even  the 
Son  of  Grod.  All  His  teachings,  all  His  miracles  are  straight- 
way forgotten.     He  is  a  blasphemer.  He  must  die. 

It  may  be  also,  as  has  been  said,  that  most  of  those  that 
cried  "  Crucify  Him  "  were  citizens  of  Jerusalem  who,  under 
the  influence  of  the  hierarchy,  had  never  been  well  inclined 
toward  Him,  and  who  do  not  seem  to  have  joined  in  the  hosan- 
nas  and  rejoicings  upon  the  day  of  His  entry. 

From  the  Synoptists  it  would  appear  that,  after  the  failure 
of  the  attempts  to  induce  the  multitude  to  release  Jesus,  Pilate, 
despairing  of  success,  washed  his  hands  before  the  people,  and 
then  gave  Hira  up  to  be  scourged  and  crucified  (Matt,  xxvii.  26; 
Mark  XV.  15).  Luke  (xvii.  16)  gives  Pilate's  words:  "I  will 
therefore  chastise  Him  and  release  Him,"  but  says  nothing  of 
any  scourging.  (It  is  in  question  what  is  meant  by  "  chastise  " 
here  —  TraiSevu.  Some  say  it  is  equivalent  to  scourge;  so  T. 
G.  Lex.;  but  Meyer  says:  "what  kind  of  chastisement  is  left 
indefinite."     Verse  17  is  omitted  by  W.  and  H.  and  Tisch.)     But 


Part  Vll]  THE  SCOURGINGS.  530 

John  (xix.  4-12)  relates  otlier  and  apparently  subsequent  attempts 
to  save  Him,  placing  tliem  after  and  in  connection  with  the  scourg- 
ing. Was  He,  then,  twice  scourged?  This  is  affirmed  by  some 
who  regard  the  scourging  of  John  (xix.  1-3)  as  designed  to 
gratify  the  elders  and  priests,  and  to  excite  popular  compassion;' 
but  that  mentioned  by  the  Synoptists  as  the  scourging  iisually 
inflicted  before  crucifixion.  But  this  is  improbable  (so  Luthardt). 
That  scourging  generally  preceded  the  crucifixion  appears  from 
Josephus.^  This  scourging  was  excessively  severe,  the  leathern 
thongs  being  often  loaded  with  lead  or  iron,  and  cutting  through 
the  flesh  even  to  the  bone,  so  that  some  died  under  it.^  But  the 
Lord  having  been  once  scourged,  there  seems  no  reason  why  it 
should  be  repeated,  nor  is  it  likely  that  Pilate  would  have  per- 
mitted it  if  he  could  have  prevented  it. 

If,  then,  Jesus  was  scourged  but  once,  and  the  accounts  of 
the  Synopti'Sts  and  of  John  refer  to  the  same  event,  why  did 
Pilate  now  permit  it?  Was  it  that  finding  himself  unable  to 
save  Jesus,  and  having  no  further  expedient,  he  gives  up  the 
struggle,  and  sends  him  away  to  be  scourged  as  preliminary 
to  His  death?*  Or  did  he  permit  it  hoping  that  through  the 
milder  punishment  he  might  awaken  pity,  and  thus  rescue  Him 
from  death?*  It  is  not  easy  to  decide  as  to  Pilate's  motives. 
He  had  early  offered  to  chastise  Jesus  and  then  release  Him; 
but  this  the  multitude  refused,  and  demanded  His  crucifixion. 
It  does  not,  then,  seem  probable  that  He  could  hope  that  the 
mere  sight  of  Jesus  suffering  this  punishment  could  so  awaken 
their  pity  as  to  change  their  determination.®  And  why,  if  this 
were  his  purpose,  should  Jesus  be  taken  into  the  common  hall, 
or  Prsetorium,  and  be  subjected  to  the  insults  and  mockery  of 
the  soldiers?  We  infer  then,  that  Pilate,  having  yielded  to  the 
priests  and  rulers,  sent  Him  to  be  scourged  as  preliminary  to 
His  crucifixion,  which  was  done  by  the  soldiers  in  their  usual 


»  So  Bleek,  Brtlckiier  in  DeWette,  Nebe,  ii.  80. 

2  War,  ii.  14.  9,  and  v.  11.  1.    See  Winer,  i.  677;  Friedlieb,  Arch.,  114. 

3  As  to  flagellation  among  the  Jews,  see  Ainsworth  on  Deut.  xxv.  1-3. 
*  Bynaeus,  Siier,  KrafEt,  EUicott. 

6  Meyer,  Sepp,  Alford,  Jones,  Tholuck,  Godet. 

6  It  is  not  certain  whether  He  was  scourged  in  the  Prretorium  in  the  court,  or 
without  it  and  in  front  of  it,  where  the  tribunal  was  placed.  The  words  of  Matthew  and 
Mark  imply  the  latter;  so  Meyer,  Lange.  But  if  He  was  scourged  but  once,  it  would 
eeem  from  John  xix.  4  that  it  was  done  in  the  Prsetorium;  so  Bynaeus. 


540  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII 

cruel  way;  and  that,  beholding  Him  bloody  from  the  scourge, 
clothed  with  the  purple  robe,  and  wearing  the  crown  of  thorns, 
his  own  compassion  was  awakened  and  he  resolved  to  make  one 
last  effort  to  deliver  Him  from  death.  He  therefore  leads  Him 
forth,  and  after  an  emphatic  declaration  for  the  third  time  that 
he  finds  no  fault  in  Him,  presents  Him  to  the  people,  saying, 
"  Behold  the  man."  He  hoped  that  the  sight  of  one  so  meek, 
so  helpless,  so  wretched,  would  touch  the  hearts  of  all  as  it  had 
touched  his  own.  Stier  gives  rightly  the  meaning  of  his  words: 
"  Is  this  man  a  king  ?  an  insurgent  ?  a  man  to  be  feared,  or 
dangerous  ?  How  innocent  and  how  miserable !  Is  it  not 
enough  ?  "  It  is  probable,  as  said  by  Jones,  that  as  He  wore  the 
crown  of  thorns  and  purple  robe,  so  He  also  bore  in  His  hand 
the  reed.  But  nothing  could  touch  the  hearts  of  His  embit- 
tered enemies.  As  they  saw  Him,  the  chief  priests  and  oflBcers 
raised  anew  the  cry,  "  Crucify  Him,  crucify  Him.""  It  is  not 
said  that  the  people  at  large  joined  in  it;  and  perhaps  for 'a 
time,  through  fear  or  pity,  they  were  silent. 

Angry  at  the  implacable  determination  of  the  rulers  that 
Jesus  should  be  crucified,  Pilate  tauntingly  responds  to  the  cry, 
"  Take  ye  Him  and  crucify  Him,  for  I  find  no  fault  in  Him." 
Lardner  (i.  54)  paraphrases  these  words:  "You  must  crucify 
Him  then  yourselves,  if  you  can  commit  such  a  villany,  for  I 
cannot.  He  appears  to  me  innocent,  as  I  have  told  you  already, 
and  I  have  now  punished  Him  as  much  as  He  deserves." 
(Godet,  ii.  374.)  The  Jews  now  perceived  that  Pilate,  knowing 
that  the  charge  of  sedition  was  baseless,  and  deeply  sympathizing 
with  Jesus,  would  not  put  Him  to  death ;  and  were  compelled  to 
return  to  the  original  charge  of  blasphemy  upon  which  he  was 
condemned.  '•  We  have  a  law  and  by  our  law  He  ought  to  die, 
because  He  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God."  This  gives  a  new 
turn  to  the  accusation;  they  had  charged  Him  witli  saying  that 
He  was  Christ  a  King,  but  here  is  far  more  (Godet).  This  men- 
tion of  the  fact  that  Jesus  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God,  had  a 
power  over  Pilate  who  now  heard  of  it  for  the  first  time,  which 
the  Jews  little  anticipated.  Was  then  his  prisoner,  whose 
appearance,  words,  and  conduct  had  so  strangely  and  so  deeply 
interested  him,  a  divine  being;?     Full  of  fear  he  returns  to  the 


Part  YII.]  REJECTED  BY   THE   JEWS.  541 

judgment  hall  and  commands  Jesus  to  be  brought,  and  demands, 
"  Whence  art  thou?  "  His  silence  at  first,  and  still  uiore  His 
answer  afterward,  confirmed  Pilate  in  his  determination  to  release 
Him,  and  he  may  probably  have  taken  some  open  step  toward  it. 
But  the  rulers  will  not  thus  give  up  their  victim.  They  begin 
to  threaten  that  if  he  release  Him  he  thereby  shows  that  he  is 
Caesar's  enemy,  and  that  they  will  accuse  him  before  the  emperor. 
Pilate  now  perceives  the  danger  of  his  position.  Such  an  accu- 
sation he  must,  at  any  cost,  avoid.  His  administration  would 
not,  in  many  respects,  bear  a  close  scrutiny;  and  the  slightest 
suspicion  that  he  had  shown  favor  to  a  claimant  of  the  Jewish 
throne,  falling  into  the  ear  of  the  jealous  and  irritable  Tiberius, 
would  have  endangered,  not  only  his  office  but  his  life.  Such 
peril  he  could  not  meet.  The  shrewd  elders  and  priests,  who 
knew  the  selfish  weakness  of  his  character,  pressed  their  advan- 
tage, and  Pilate  dared  do  no  more.  Jesus  must  be  crucified. 
He  now  prepares  to  give  final  sentence.  But  he  will  first  clear 
himself  of  the  guilt  of  shedding  innocent  blood.  He  takes  water 
and  washes  his  hands  before  all,  to  show  that  he  is  clean.' 
"  Then  answered  all  the  people,  His  blood  be  on  us  and  on  our 
children."  At  this  moment,  about  to  give  sentence,  Pilate  could 
not  give  up  the  poor  satisfaction  of  mocking  the  Jews  in  what 
he  knew  well  to  be  a  most  tender  point  —  their  Messianic  hopes. 
He  cries  out,  "  Behold  your  king."  His  contemptuous  words 
only  bring  back  the  fierce  response,  "Away  with  Him;  crucify 
Him."  Still  more  bitterly  he  repeats,  "Shall  1  crucify  your 
king?  "  The  answer  of  the  chief  priests,  for  the  people  are  not 
said  to  have  joined  in  it,  "  We  have  no  king  but  Caesar,"  was  an 
open  renunciation  of  their  allegiance  to  Jehovah  and  of  the  cove- 
nant which  He  had  made  with  the  house  of  David  (2  Sam.  vii. 
12).  Thus  had  the  Jews  been  led,  step  by  step,  not  only  to 
reject  their  Messiah,  to  prefer  a  robber  and  murderer  before  Him, 
to  insist  mercilessly  that  He  should  be  put  to  a  most  shameful 
death,  but  even  to  accept  and  openly  proclaim  the  Roman  em- 
peror as  their  king.  This  was  the  culminating  point  of  national 
apostasy. 


1  Many  place  this  after  the  words  of  the  Jews,  "  We  have  no  kmg  but  Caesar  ' 
(John  xix.  15);  so  Stier.    Some  before  the  scourging  of  Jesus;  so  Jones. 


542  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

Some  points  presented  by  the  narrative  demand  further  con- 
sideration. Brief  reasons  have  been  given  for  supposing  that 
Jesus  was  scourged  but  once.  Some,  however,  would  make  the 
scourging  mentioned  by  John  (xix.  1)  a  kmd  of  judicial  torture, 
or  quaestio  per  tormenta^  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  a  confession  if 
the  prisoner  were  really  guilty.  To  this  torture  by  scourging, 
it  is  said,  Pilate  subjected  Jesus,  not  that  he  had  any  doubt  of  His 
innocence,  but  that  if  no  confession  of  guilt  were  extorted,  he 
might  have  stronger  grounds  for  setting  Him  free.'  Torture  was 
customary  with  the  Romans  (Acts  xxii.  24),  and  was  practised  by 
Herod  the  Great.^  But  that  Pilate  should  now  have  recourse  to 
it,  when  he  himself  knew  Jesus  to  be  innocent,  merely  that  he 
might  say  to  the  Jews  that  He  had  made  no  confession,  is  most 
improbable.  Sepp  (vi.  241)  supposes  that  the  soldiers  regarded 
the  scourging  as  intended  to  extort  a  confession,  and  acted 
accordingly  though  Pilate  had  other  designs. 

The  person  to  be  scourged  was  bound  to  a  low  pillar  that, 
bending  over,  the  blows  might  be  better  inflicted.  The  pillar  to 
which  the  Lord  was  bound  is  mentioned  by  Jerome  and  Bede 
and  others.  3  There  is  now  shown  in  the  church  of  tiie  Holy 
Sepulchre  a  fragment  of  a  porphyry  column  called  the  Colunm 
of  the  Flagellation,  and  a  rival  column  is  preserved  at  Rome. 
(See  Baed.,  198;  Williams,  H.  C,  ii.  207.) 

The  traditional  site  in  the  Via  Dolorosa  of  the  place  where 
Pilate  presented  Jesus  to  the  people,  or  the  Arch  of  the  Ecce 
Homo,  has  been  recently  defended  by  Saulcy  (ii.  291)  who 
says  that  this  arched  gate  was  connected  with  a  wall  of  Pilate's 
palace,  and  answered  the  purpose  of  a  gallery  or  tribune  when 
the  governor  wished  to  address  the  people.  (See  Rob.,  iii.  171, 
220.)  We  know  that  Pilate  brought  Jesus  out,  and  seated  him- 
self upon  the  platform  or  tribune  —  (iriiia  —  (John  xix.  1 3), 
which  was  situated  in  the  pavement,  and  there,  for  the  second 
time,  showed  Him  to  the  people.  Some  have  understood  it  that 
he  placed  the  Lord  upon  the  tribune  as  if  in  mockery;  most 
reject  this.     (For  its  position  see  Nebe,  ii.  150.) 


'  Hug,  cited  by  Tholuck;  Biicher,  777;  Kirchen,  Lex.,  vi.  271;  Friedlieb,  331,  see, 
however,  contra,  liis  Archaol.,  116;  Nebe,  ii.  111. 

2  See  Josepliuis,  Antiq.  xvi.  10.  3.  and  4, 

3  Hofmann,  365. 


Part  VII.]  THE   SENTENCE   OF   PILATE.  543 

The  form  of  Pilate's  sentence  is  not  given.  The  customary 
form  was,  His  ad  crucem.  Friedlieb  (Arch.,  125)  gives  a  sen- 
tence pretended  by  Adrichomius  to  be  genuine,  but  rightly  re- 
jects it.  Another  sentence,  said  to  have  been  found  in  Aquila 
in  Italy,  has  been  often  printed.  Another  was  found  at  the 
same  place  a  few  years  since.*     Both  are  obvious  fabrications. 

It  has  been  much  disputed  whether  Pilate  transmitted  to  the 
emperor  at  Rome  any  account  of  Christ's  trial  and  death.  In 
itself  this  is  intrinsically  probable,  for  it  seems  to  have  been  the 
custom  of  governors  of  provinces  to  send  thither  records  of  the 
more  important  events  occurring  during  their  administration. 
Thus  Philo  speaks  of  the  "acts,"  {acta,)  transmitted  to  Caligula 
from  Alexandria.  That  Pilate  did  send  such  records,  appears 
from  Justin  Martyr's  address  to  the  Emperor  Pius,  in  which  he 
appeals  to  them  as  proving  Christ's  miracles  and  sufferings. 
Tertullian,  in  his  Apology,  also  appeals  to  them.  Eusebius,  in 
his  history  (ii.  2),  relates,  upon  the  authority  of  Tertullian,  that 
Tiberius,  receiving  these  acts  of  Pilate  containing  an  account  of 
the  Lord's  resurrection  and  of  His  miracles,  proposed  to  the  sen- 
ate that  He  should  be  ranked  among  the  gods.  If,  however, 
Pilate  really  sent  such  an  account,  we  obtain  from  it  no  addi- 
tional particulars  respecting  the  trial  and  death  of  the  Lord. 
No  writer  gives  any  quotation  from  it,  from  which  it  may  be 
inferred  that  none,  even  of  those  who  refer  to  it,  had  ever  seen 
it ;  and  it  is  said  by  Schiirer  to  have  no  historical  value.  (See 
Leyrer  in  Herzog,  xi.  665.)  The  supposition  that  Pilate's  records 
had  been  destroyed  by  the  senate  or  emperor  before  the  time  of 
Constantine,  in  order  to  remove  this  proof  of  Christianity,  is  not 
very  probable.* 

Some  have  attempted  to  cast  additional  light  upon  the  evan- 
gelical narratives  by  referring  to  the  Apocryphal  Gospel  of  Nico- 
demus,  in  the  first  part  of  which  an  account  is  given  of  the  trial, 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  the  Lord.  But  from  it  very 
little  of  value  can  be  drawn.' 

That  we  may  keep  before  us  the  order  of  events  from  the  time  the 
Lord  was  brought  before  Pilate  to  His  departure  to  the  place  of  cru- 


I 


1  See  both  given  by  Hofmanii,  360--369. 

2  See  Jones,  Canon  N.  Test.  ii.  330;  Pearson  on  Creed,  art.  4;  Jarvis,  375. 

*  See  Tischendorf's  Pilati  Circa  Christum  Judicium,  Lipsiae,  1855;  Hofmann,  334 


544  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

ciflxion,  we  may  note  the  following  subdivisions  of  time.  1.  From 
the  bringing  to  Pilate  to  the  sending  to  Herod.  3.  While  with 
Herod.  3.  After  the  return  from  Herod  till  the  scourging  and  pre- 
sentation to  the  people  as  Ecce  Homo.     4.  To  the  final  sentence. 

1.  {a)  Jesus  is  presented  before  Pilate  by  the  rulers  as  a  male- 
factor. He  refers  the  case  back  to  them:  "Take  ye  Him  and  judge 
Him  according  to  your  law."  Qi)  They  bring  the  more  specific 
charge  of  sedition.  Pilate  now  examines  the  Lord,  and  is  convinced 
that  it  is  not  true,  and  so  declares  to  the  Jews,  {c)  They  renew 
more  loudly  the  charge  of  sedition,  and  sjieak  of  Galilee.  Pilate 
determines  to  send  Him  to  Herod. 

2.  («)  The  Lord  is  sent  to  Herod.  The  chief  priests  and  scribes 
follow  and  vehemently  accuse  Him.  He  refuses  to  answer.  (t>)  He 
is  mocked  by  Herod  and  the  soldiers,  and  sent  back  to  Pilate. 

3.  (a)  On  His  return,  Pilate  calls  together  the  chief  jiriests  and 
rulers  and  the  people  that  he  may  declare  Him  innocent;  but  they 
are  more  vehement  against  Him.  (li)  He  prepares  to  release  Jesus 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  feast.  The  multitude  chose  Barabbas 
and  cry.  Crucify  Jesus,  (c)  Message  of  his  wife,  {d)  He  orders  Jesus 
to  be  scourged  and  presents  Him  to  the  people:  "Behold  the  man," 
hoping  to  awaken  their  compassion. 

4.  (a)  The  chief  priests  and  officers  renew  their  cries  to  crucify 
Him.  (b)  Pilate  refuses  and  bids  them  crucify  Him.  They  renew 
the  charge,  adding  that  He  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God.  (c)  Pilate 
examines  Jesus  anew,  and  again  seeks  to  release  Him.  {cJ)  The  rulers 
threaten  to  accuse  Pilate  before  the  emi)eror.  (e)  Pilate  is  afraid, 
and  yields  to  their  demands.  (/)  He  takes  water  and  washes  his 
hands,     ig)  He   gives  Jesus  up  to  be  crucified. 

Friday,  15th  Nisan,  7th  April,  783.     A.  D.  30. 

Delivered  by  Pilate  into  the  hands  of  soldiers,  He  is    John  xix.  16-32. 
led  without  the  city  to  a  place  called  Golgotha,  bearing     Matt,  xxvii.  31-33- 
His  cross.     Being  exhausted   under    the  burden,    the    Mark  xv.  20-26. 
soldiers  compel  Simon  of  Cyrene,  whom  they  meet,  to 
bear  it  with  Jesus.     To  some  women  following  Him  and    Luke  xxiii.  26-33. 
weeping,  He  speaks  words  of  admouititm,  and  foretells 
the  judgments  about  to  come  upon  Jerusalem.     After 
He  has  been  affixed  to  the  cross,  they  give  Him  wine    Matt,  xxvii.  3;^38 
mingled  with  gall,  but  He  will  not  drink.     Two  male-    Mark  xv.  27,  28. 
factors  are  crucified  with  Him,  one  on  the   right  hand 
and  one  on  the  left.     As   they  are  nailing  Him  to  the    Luke  xxiii.  34. 
cross.  He  prays  to  His  Father  to  forgive  them.     The 
inscription  placed  over  His  head  displeases    the  Jews, 


Part  VII.]  THE   CRUCIFIXION.  545 

but  Pilate  refuses  to  change  it.     The  soldiers  who  keep    John  xix.  23-4. 
watch  at  the  foot  of  the  cross,  divide  His  garments 
among  themselves. 

After  the  chief  priests  had  declared  that  they  "  had  no  king 
but  Caesar,"  Pilate  delivered  Jesus  to  them,  "  and  they  took  Him 
and  led  Him  away"  (John  xix.  16).  But  this  they  did  through 
the  soldiers  of  the  governor,  as  said  by  the  Synoptists.  Mark 
mentions  that  "they  led  Him  out  to  crucify  Him."  The  place 
of  crucifixion  was  outside  the  city.  (The  Holy  City,  like  the 
camp  of  old,  must  not  be  defiled  with  blood.  Num.  xv.  35;  so 
Naboth,  1  Kings  xxi.  13,  and  Stephen,  Acts  vii.  58,  were  stoned 
without.)  With  Jesus  two  malefactors  were  led  (Luke  xxiii.  32). 
As  they  also  were  crucified,  it  must  have  been  by  command  of 
tlie  governor.  Why  he  took  this  occasion  we  are  not  told;  most 
prol:)ably  they  had  been  previously  sentenced.  Nebe  (ii.  191) 
ascribes  it  to  a  purpose  on  Pilate's  part  to  mock  the  Messianic 
expectation  of  the  Jews,  the  nation  being  represented  by  the  two 
malefactors,  and  their  Messiah  between  them. 

Some  controverted  points  as  to  the  time  and  the  manner 
of  the  crucifixion  here  meet  us.  We  will  consider  them  in 
their  order.  The  place  will  be  considered  later  in  connection 
with  the  burial. 

The  time  of  the  crucifixion.  If  the  Sanhedriu  held  its  second 
session  at  day-break,  or  a  little  before  sunrise,  as  the  statements  of 
the  Evangelists  lead  us  to  suppose,  the  events  subsequent  down  to 
the  crucifixion,  must  have  occupied  several  hours.  The  time  when 
Jesus  was  led  to  the  hall  of  judgment  is  noted  by  John  (xviii.  28), 
"  and  it  was  early"  —  ^v  di  -n-pujL  If  this  denote  the  fourth  watch  of 
the  night,  it  was  from  3-6  A.  m.  The  usual  hour  for  opening  judicial 
proceedings  among  the  Romans,  according  to  FriedUeb,  was  9  a.  m., 
but  according  to  Nebe  (ii.  37),  much  earlier,  at  sunrise,  if  necessary; 
and  jirobably  Pilate  now  a  little  anticipated  the  time.  The  crucifix- 
ion itself  was  at  some  point  during  the  interval  from  nine  to  twelve. 
It  was,  according  to  John  (xix.  14),  "about  the  sixth  hour" — • 
u)pa  5k  (Jo-el  'iKT-q —  (uJpa  i}v  cJs  ^/cttj,  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.)  when  Pilate  sat 
down  in  the  judgment  seat  to  pronounce  final  sentence.  But  this 
seems  in  direct  opposition  to  Mark  (xv.  25),  "  And  it  was  the  third 
hour,  and  they  crucified  Him."  Against  John's  statement  is  tliat 
also  of  all  the  Synoptists,  that  there  was  darkness  from  the  sixth  hour 
over  all  the  land  till  the  ninth  hour  (Matt,  xxvii.  45 ;  Mark  xv.  33 ; 


546  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  VII. 

Luke  xxiii.  44).     This  darkness  did  not  begin  till  Jesus  had  been 
for  some  time  nailed  to  the  cross. 

Many  efforts  have  been  made  to  harmonize  this  discrepancy.' 
That  change  of  punctuation  which  places  a  period  at  the  word  "  prepa- 
ration" (in  John  xix.  14),  and  joins  "  of  the  passover  "  with  "  hour," 
making  it  to  read,  "  And  it  was  the  preparation,  and  about  the  sixth 
hour  of  the  passover,"  has  been  already  spoken  of  in  another  connec- 
tion. (Licht.,  after  Hofmann.)  It  is  forced  and  untenable.  Some 
would  change  "sixth"  into  "third,"  regarding  the  former  as  an 
error  of  copyists,"  and  thus  bring  John  into  harmony  with  Mark.  But 
all  the  weight  of  authority  is  in  favor  of  the  present  reading.^  Light- 
foot  finds  a  solution  in  his  interpretation  of  Mark,  who  does  not  say, 
"it  was  the  third  hour  when  they  crucified  Him,"  but  "it  was  the 
third  hour  and  they  crucified  Him."  This  notes  that  the  fathers  of  the 
Sanhedrin  should  have  been  present  at  the  third  hour  in  the  temple, 
offering  their  thank  offerings:  "  When  the  third  hour  now  was,  and 
was  passed,  yet  they  omitted  not  to  prosecute  His  conviction."  This 
is  wholly  unsatisfactory.  Some  would  make  the  "  preparation  "  of 
John  (xix.  14):  "It  was  the  preparation  —  irapaffKevr) — of  the  pass- 
over,"  to  denote  not  the  whole  day,  but  that  part  of  it  immediately 
preceding  the  Sabbath,  or  from  3-6  p.  m.  Thus  John's  meaning 
would  be,  it  was  the  sixth  hour  before  the  commencement  of  the 
preparation,  or  about  9  a.  m.,  which  would  agree  with  Mark.  Oth- 
ers would  read  it,  "about  the  sixth  hour,  or  noon,  the  preparation 
time  of  Passover  day  commenced."  Both  these  constructions  are 
arbitrary.  Some  would  make  the  term  hour  —  c3pa  —  to  be  used  by 
John  in  a  large  sense.  The  day  of  twelve  hours,  it  is  said,  was  di- 
vided into  four  equal  periods,  and  to  each  of  these  periods  was  the 
term  "hour"  applied.  Thus  the  first  period  was  from  G-9  a.  m., 
the  second,  from  9-12,  the  third,  from  12-3  p.  m.,  the  fourth  from 
3-6.  During  the  period  from  9-12  A.  M.  the  condemnation  and  cruci- 
fixion of  the  Lord  took  place.  Mark  speaks  of  the  third  hour,  or 
beginning  of  the  second  period,  including  the  time  from  9  to  10  a. 
M.  ;  John  of  the  sixth  hour,  or  end  of  that  period,  including  the 
time  from  11  to  12  a.  m.^  Both  agree  that  in  the  interval  from  9-12 
the  Lord  was  condemned   and  crucified.     Hengstenberg  in  loco  says : 


1  For  a  full  account  of  early  opinions,  see  BjTiaeus,  iii.  178. 

*  Bynaeus;  Robinson,  Har.,  261,  Luthardt,  Bloomfield.  Farrar  speaks  of  this  as  "  a 
possible  solution,"  but  Riddle  thinks  such  an  error  unlikely:  "  No  recent  editor  accepts 
the  reading."     See  Langen,  329. 

*  Tischendorf,  Alford,  Greswell,  Wieseler,  Meyer,  but  see  W.  and  H.  Ap. 

*  It  is  said  by  Jones  (iv.  41) :  "  The  sixth  hour  was  deemed  to  continue  till  9  a.  m.": 
and  by  Grotius  on  Matt,  xxviii.  45,  that  whatever  was  done  between  the  third  and  sixth 
hour,  might  be  referred  to  the  beginning  or  end.    So  Campbell,  Krafft. 


Part  VII.]  TIME   OF  THE   CRUCIFIXION.  547 

"  The  sentence  of  Pilate  and  the  loading  away  to  crucifixion,  fill  in 
the  middle  between  the  third  and  sixth  hours,  that  is,  about  half  an 
hour  after  ten."  Ellicott  says:  "The  crucifixion  was  somewhere 
between  the  two  broad  divisions  of  the  third  and  sixth  hours."  But 
we  cannot  regard  this  meaning  of  the  term  hour  as  warranted.' 

Many  affirm  that  John  reckons  the  hours  according  to  the  Roman 
I  mode,  from  midnight ;  and  if  so,  the  sixth  hour  would  be  6  A.  m.  But 
there  is  much  dispute  as  to  the  Roman  mode  of  computation.  It  is 
said  by  many  that  the  Romans  had  no  such  reckoning  from  mid- 
night (so  Farrar),  but  the  better  opinion  is  that  the  Romans  used  both 
modes,  from  midnight  and  from  sunrise.  (See  Wieseler,  Syn.  410; 
Beitrage,  252;  seepage  159  for  other  references.)  It  is  thus  possi- 
ble that  John  may  have  reckoned  from  midnight  in  this  case,  though 
we  have  seen  reason  to  think  that  in  other  cases  he  reckons  from 
sunrise.  If  Pilate  counted  the  hours  from  midnight,  and  if  there 
was  a  fixed  hour  for  the  opening  of  his  court,  it  is  very  probable 
that  this  hour  was  the  sixth,  and  that  the  Evangelist  here  followed 
this  mode  of  computation.  The  objections  are  made  that  all  the 
events  narrated  by  the  Evangelists  from  the  first  session  of  the  San- 
hedrin  to  the  condemnation,  could  not  have  taken  place  by  6  a.  m., 
and  that  the  interval  from  6  to  9  is  too  long  for  the  preparation  nec- 
essary after  the  condemnation  for  the  crucifixion ;  and  these  objections 
seem  well  taken.  But  we  are  to  remember  that  our  exact  divisions 
of  time  were  unknown  to  the  ancients  ;'^  and  that  in  our  ignorance 
of  the  circumstances,  we  can  here  have  no  accurate  measure  of  the 
time  consumed;  and  also,  that  John  says  it  was  "about  the  sixth 
hour,"  which  shows  that  he  does  not  mean  to  give  an  exact  note  of 
the  time. 

We  conclude,  then, that  John  may  have  reckoned  the  hours  from 
midnight,  the  sixth  hour  when  Pilate  sat  down  on  the  judgment 
seat,  extending  from  6  to  7  A.  m.  ;  the  subsequent  preparations  for 
the  crucifixion,  and  the  time  occupied  in  going  to  the  cross,  may  well 
have  brought  the  act  of  nailing  to  the  cross  about  nine  o'clock,  as 
said  by  Mark.  But  if  John  reckoned,  like  the  Synoptists,  from  sun- 
rise, then  we  must  suppose  an  error  in  his  text  (Nebe),  or  in  that  of 
Mark  (Caspari),  or  find  a  discrepancy  which  we  know  not  how  to 
reconcile. 

We  give  the  following  arrangements : 

Ewald :     The  Lord  was  brought  to  Pilate  an  hour  before  sunrise, 


1  See  T.  G.  Lex.,  sub  voce.    Robinson,  Greek  Lex. :  "  With  a  numeral,  marking  the 
hour  of  the  day  as  counted  from  sunrise." 

2  See  Pauly,  Real  Encyc,  ii.  1017,  art.  Dies. 


548  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII 

the  sentence  was  ])ronounced  at  6  a.  m.,  and  the  crucifixion  took 
place  at  9  a.  m. 

Edersheim:  The  process  before  Pilate  began  at  6.30  a.  m.,  and 
occupied  two  hours;  the  Lord  reached  Golgotha  about  9. 

Caspari :  The  Lord  was  taken  before  Pilate  about  6  A.  m.  ;  the 
proceedings  in  the  Proetorium  lasted  till  near  noon ;  the  crucifixion 
was  about  13  m.,  the  Lord  hanging  on  the  cross  only  three  hours. 

To  the  place  of  crucifixion  Jesus  was  conducted  by  the  sol- 
diers, Pilate  not  having  lictors  to  whom  such  duty  specially  be- 
longed. It  is  said  by  John  (xix.  17):  "And  He  bearing  His 
cross,  went  forth."  (R.  Y.  "He  went  out,  bearing  the  cross  for 
Himself.")  Luke  (xxiii.  26)  adds  the  incident  "that  they  laid 
hold  upon  one  Simon  a  Cyrenian,  .  .  .  and  on  him  they 
laid  the  cross,  that  he  might  bear  it  after  Jesus."  It  is  often 
said  that  the  cross  was  first  borne  by  the  Lord  alone  according 
to  custom,  but  fainting  under  the  burden,  it  was  put  upon 
Simon.  It  is  plain  from  Matthew  (xxvii.  32)  that  the  procession 
met  Simon  as  they  passed  out  of  the  gate  of  the  city  and  he  was 
entering  in,  and  so  that  the  Lord  bore  the  cross  alone  to  this 
point.  "Whether  He  bore  the  whole  cross  or  only  a  part  of  it  — 
the  cross-beam  or  patihulum —  is  in  dispute.  It  is  said  by  Zoeck- 
ler'  (93)  and  Nebe  (ii.  168)  that  He  bore  the  whole  cross;  by 
others,  as  Keim,  that  He  bore  only  the  lighter  transom.  The 
data  for  a  judgment  are  very  scanty,  but  the  belief  of  the  early 
church  was  that  the  whole  cross  was  put  on  the  Lord ;  and  this 
is  shown  in  the  early  paintings,  and  in  such  expressions  as  "to 
bear  the  cross,"  ferre  crucem,  in  crucem  tollere,  which  refer  to  it  as 
complete  and  set  up  (Luke  xiv.  27;  see  Meyer  on  Matt,  xxvii. 
32,  note).  It  is  nowhere  said  that  He  fell  under  the  burden;  this 
is  an  inference  and  a  very  probable  one,  and  the  painters  so  rep- 
resented it.  The  weight  of  the  cross  is  estimated  by  Vigouroux 
at  70-75  kilograms;  we  may  say  about  150  lbs.  It  is  doubted  by 
some  whether  it  was  the  Roman  custom  for  all  criminals  to  bear 
their  own  crosses,  and  whether  the  two  malefactors  did;  if  they 
did,  we  do  not  know  whether  they  went  in  the  same  procession 
with  the  Lord.     This  is  said  by  Sepp,  they  went  before  Him. 

Of  this  Simon  who  bore  the  cross,  little  is  known  except  that 


1  The  Cross  of  Christ  (Trans.,  1877). 


Part   VII.]  THE  WAY  TO  THE  CROSS.  549 

he  was  a  Cyrenian  and  the  father  of  Alexander  and  Rufus  (Mark 
XV.  21).  Many  suppose  him  a  slave  from  the  fact,  that  while  so 
many  Jews  must  have  been  present,  they  were  passed  by,  and 
he  was  seized  upon  to  perform  this  degrading  office.'  The  rea- 
son, however,  of  his  selection  may  simply  have  been  that,  chanc- 
ing to  be  close  at  hand  when  Jesus  sank  down  from  weariness, 
they  compelled  him  to  assist.  Others  suppose  him  to  have  been  a 
disciple,  and  on  that  account  selected ;  but  this  fact  could  scarcely 
have  been  known  to  the  soldiers.  That  he  subsequently  became 
a  disciple  is  more  probable.  Following  the  Lord  upon  the  way 
to  the  place  of  crucifixion  was  "  a  great  company  of  people 
and  of  women,  which  also  bewailed  and  lamented  Him  "  (Luke 
xxiii.  27).  These  women  seem  to  have  been  not  those  only 
who  followed  Him  from  Galilee,  but  were  in  great  part  those  of 
the  city  or  the  country  adjacent,  who  had  seen  Him  or  heard 
Him,  and  now  sympathized  with  Him,  and  whom  He  addresses 
as  the  "  Daughters  of  Jerusalem." 

The  Via  Dolorosa.  The  way  along  which  the  Lord  passed  from 
the  hall  of  judgment  to  the  place  of  crucifixion  is  traditionally  known 
as  the  Via  Dolorosa."^  Its  course  depends  on  the  position  we  give  to 
the  two  termini,  about  both  of  which  there  is  uncertainty.  Assuming 
that  He  was  crucified  near  the  present  Holy  Sepulchre,  if  the  Prae- 
torium  was  at  Herod's  palace,  the  way  ran  north ;  if  at  -Antonia,  it 
ran  southwest  (see  cut) ;  the  distance  being  about  the  same  in  both 
cases,  and  is  estimated  in  the  Speakers'  Commentary  (Matt,  xxvii.  31) 
as  less  than  one-third  of  a  mile. 

It  is  said  by  Vigouroux  (Le  Nouveau  Testament)  who  puts  the 
Praetorium  at  Antonia,  that  the  length  of  the  way  was  from  500-600 
metres;  an  old  measurement  made  it  1,321  steps.  Of  the  way  from 
Herod's  palace  tradition  says  nothing,  but  makes  frequent  mention 
of  the  way  from  Antonia.  But  it  is  said  by  Robinson  (iii.  170)  that 
the  first  allusion  to  the  present  Via  Dolorosa  he  had  found,  was  in 
the  14th  century,  and  that  in  the  12th  we  know  that  no  street  in 
Jerusalem  bore  this  name.  Sepp  (vi.  305),  who  puts  the  Praetorium 
at  Herod's  palace,    supposes  the  Lord   to  have  passed    through  the 


1  So  Meyer,  Sepp. 

-  For  a  minute  account  of  the  Lord's  progress  from  the  judgment  hall  to  the  cross, 
along  the  Via  Dolorosa,  and  the  traditionary  incidents,  see  Hofmann,  371.  And  for  full 
details  as  to  the  traditional  stations  along  this  way,  sec  Tobler,  Top.,  i.  262,  etc.  If  the 
place  of  crucilixion  was  north  of  the  Damascus  gate,  we  are  still  uncertain  as  to  the  point 
flora  whence  the  way  began.    Sepp,  Kri/lscht  Beit/age,  60. 


550  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Fart  Vll. 

Gennath  or  garden  gate,  and  thence  to  Golgotha;  and  Edersheim 
(ii.  586),  "  through  the  gate  in  the  first  wall,  and  so  into  the  busy 
quarter  of  Acra."  All  traces  of  the  Lord's  route  have  been  long 
obliterated  by  the  changes  through  which  the  city  has  passed. 
Col.  Wilson  (Bib.  Ed.,  iv.  278)  remarks  that  "  the  Armenian  gardens 


THE  VIA  DOLOROSA  OR  DOLOROUS  WAT. 

are  from  forty  to  fifty  feet  above  those  of  Herod's  palace,  and  that 
the  present'  Via  Dolorosa  is  about  the  same  height  above  the  pave- 
ments of  the  ancient  street." 

The  Crucifixion.  This  was  a  punishment  used  by  the  Greeks, 
Romans,  Egyptians,  and  many  other  nations,  but  not  by  the  Jews. 
It  was,  indeed,  permitted  by  the  law  to  hang  a  man  on  a  tree,  but 
only  after  he  had  been  put  to  death  (Deut.  xxi.  22,  23).  Upon  this, 
Maimonides,  quoted  by  Ainsworth,  remarks:  "After  they  are  stoned 
to  death,  they  fasten  a  piece  of  timber  in  the  earth  and  out  of  it  there 
crosseth  a  piece  of  wood ;  then  they  tie  both  his  hands  one  to  another, 
and  hang  them  near  unto  the  setting  of  the  sun."  The  form  of  the 
cross  might  be  varied.  Sometimes  it  was  in  the  shape  of  the  letter 
X,  this  was  called  crux  decussata.  Sometimes  it  was  in  the  shajie 
of  the  letter  T,  this  was  called  crux  commissa.  Sometimes  it  was 
in  the  form  following:  ^,  this  was  called  cr'tix  imrnissa.  These 
designations  seem  to  have  been  invented  by  Lip3ius(i)e  Cruce,  i.  vii.). 
The  crux  decussatn  is  better  known  as  St.  Andrew's  cross;  the  crux 
commissa,  as  the  Egyptian,  or  St.  Anthony's,  or  the  Greek  cross;  the 
erux  imrnissa  as  the  Latin  cross.     According  to  Zoeckler  (65)  neithei 


Part  VII.]  MANNER   OF  CRUCIFIXION.  551 

the  crux  decussata  nor  commissa  can  be  shown  to  be  a  Roman  instru- 
ment of  punishment.  Tradition  affirms  that  the  cross  on  which  the 
Lord  suffered  was  the  Latin  cross;  and  early  painters  have  so  rep- 
resented it,  and  this  is  generally  accepted.'  The  upright  post  or  beam 
was  by  no  means  lofty,  generally  only  so  high  as  to  raise  the  person  a 
few  inches  from  the  ground.  It  is  uncertain  whether  the  cross  was 
placed  in  the  ground  before  the  victim  was  nailed  to  it,  or  after ;  but 
the  former  is  most  probable.^  Midway  upon  it  was  a  little  projection, 
sedile,  upon  which  the  person  sat,  that  the  whole  weight  of  the  body 
might  not  fall  upon  the  arms  and  they  thus  be  torn  from  the  nails. 
The  arms  were  sometimes  tied  with  cords,  perhaps  to  jjrevent  this 
pressure  upon  the  nails,  or  that  the  nailing  might  be  the  more  easily 
effected.  The  head  was  not  fastened.  Whether  the  feet  were  gener- 
ally nailed,  has  been  much  disj^uted.^  That  the  Lord's  feet  were  thus 
nailed  may  be  inferred  from  Luke  xxiv.  39,  40.  Appearing  to  the 
Eleven  upon  the  evening  following  His  resurrection.  He  said  to 
them:  "  Behold  my  hands  and  my  feet  that  it  is  I  Myself;  handle  me 
and  see,  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones  as  ye  see  me  have. 
And  when  He  had  thus  s2:)okeu.  He  showed  them  His  hands  and  His 
feet."  This  showing  of  the  hands  and  feet  could  not  be  simply  to 
convince  them  that  His  body  was  a  real  body  and  not  a  mere  phan- 
tasm; but  was  also  intended  to  convince  them  of  His  identity.  "It 
is  I  Myself,  and  in  proof  of  this,  look  at  the  prints  of  the  nails  re- 
maining in  my  hands  and  my  feet."  John  (xx.  20)  says,  "  He 
showed  unto  them  His  hands  and  His  side."  From  both  narratives, 
it  follows  that  He  showed  them  the  wounds  in  His  hands.  His  side, 
and  His  feet.  That,  at  His  second  appearing  to  the  Eleven,  He 
spake  to  Thomas  only  of  His  hands  and  His  side,  is  to  be  explained 
as  giving  all  the  proof  that  that  skeptical  apostle  had  demanded  (verse 
25).  Alford  gives  a  little  different  explanation:  "  He  probably  does 
not  name  the  feet,  merely  because  the  hands  and  side  would  more  nat- 
urally offer  themselves  to  his  examination  than  the  feet  to  which  he 
must  stoop."  That  the  feet  of  the  Lord  were  nailed,  has  been  the 
current  view  of  commentators.*     But  it  has  been  questioned  whether 


1  Hofmann,  373.  See  Bynaeus  (iii.  225),  and  Didron's  Christian  Iconography 
(Trans,  i.  374)  for  a  discussion  of  the  various  forms  of  the  cross;  also,  Uislvry  of  our 
Lord,  Jameson  and  Eastlake,  ii.  320;  Nebe,  ii.  109. 

2  Friedlieb,  Arch.,  142;  Greswell,  iii.  245;  Zoeclder,  412;  Edersheim,  ii.  589,  is 
undecided. 

3  In  nag.,  see  Paulus  (Handbuch,  iii.  C69),  who  discusses  this  point  at  great 
length;  Winer,  i.  678;  in  afE.,  Friedlieb,  144;  Meyer  on  Matt,  xxvii.  35,  who  says  "that 
the  feet  were  usually  nailed,  and  that  the  case  of  Jesus  was  no  exception  to  the  general 
rule,  may  be  regarded  as  beyond  doubt." 

*  Tholuck,  Stier,  Lange,  Ebrard,  EwalJ,  Olchauaen. 


552  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII 

the  feet  were  separately  nailed,  or  one  nail  was  used  for  both.  Ac- 
cording to  Hofmaiin,  most  of  the  painters  have  represented  the  feet 
as  lying  one  over  the  other  and  both  pierced  by  the  same  nail.' 
Didron  (Christian  Iconography)  observes:  "Previous  to  the  thir- 
teenth century,  Christ  was  attached  to  the  cross  by  three  or  four 
nails  indifferently.  After  the  thirteenth  century,  the  practice  of 
putting  only  three  nails  was  definitely  in  the  ascendant."  On  the 
other  hand,  early  tradition  speaks  of  four  nails,  and  it  is  said  by 
Vigouroux  that  all  the  Greek  painters  have  four.*  It  is  possible  th^t 
the  crown  of  thorns  remained  upon  His  head,  as  represented  by  the 
painters.  Matthew  and  Mark,  who  both  speak  of  taking  off  the 
purple  robe,  say  nothing  of  the  soldiers  removing  the  crown  of 
thorns.' 

Both  Matthew  (xxvii.  34)  and  Mark  (xv.  23)  speak  of  a  potion 
given  to  the  Lord  (that  mentioned  in  Luke  xxiii.  36  was  later),  and 
some  find  a  contradiction  between  tliem,  the  first  speaking  of  "  vine- 
gar mingled  with  gall,"  the  last  of  "  wine  mingled  with  myrrh." 
According  to  W.  and  H.  and  Tisch.,  we  should  read  ohov — wine  — 
in  Matthew,  and  thus  the  difference  in  their  statements  is  only  the  men- 
tion by  one  of  gall,  by  the  other  of  myrrh.  It  is  insisted  by  Meyer 
that  these  two  terms  cannot  be  interchanged.  If  this  view  be  taken, 
we  may  distinguish  the  two,  as  is  done  by  Townsend  and  Jones ;  the 
first,  wine  mingled  with  gall,  offered  Him  in  derision,  which  He  tasted 
but  refused;  the  second,  an  intoxicating  draught  which  He  also  re- 
fused. The  object  in  offering  the  last  seems  to  have  been  to  stu- 
pefy the  sufferer,  so  that  the  pain  might  not  be  so  acutely  felt,  and  this 
was  usually  given  before  the  nailing  to  the  cross.  This,  however,  was 
a  Jewish,  not  a  Roman  custom,  though  now  permitted  by  the  Romans.* 
Lightfoot  (on  Matt,  xxvii.  34)  quotes  from  the  Rabbins:  "To  those 
that  were  to  be  executed  they  gave  a  grain  of  myrrh  infused  in  wine 
to  drink,  that  their  understanding  might  be  disturbed  or  they  lose  their 
senses,  as  it  is  said,  '  Give  strong  drink  to  them  that  are  ready  to  die, 
and  wine  to  them  that  are  of  sorrowful  heart.'"  This  mixture  the 
Lord  tasted,  but,  knowing  its  purpose,  would  not  drink  it.  He 
would  not  permit  the  clearness  of  His  mind  to  be  thus  disturbed, 
and,  in  the  full  possession  of  consciousness,  would  endure  all  the 
agonies  of  the  cross.     It  is  said  that  this  potion  was  prepared  by 


1  See,  however,  Friedlieb,  Archaol.,  145  note;  Langen,  317. 

2  See  Winer,  i.  678;  Sepp,  vi.  333;  Ellicott,  353;  Zoeckler,  416. 

3  See  History  of  Our  Lord,  ii.  101 :  On  His  way  to  Calvary,  He  is  generally  repre- 
sented in  Art  as  with  the  crown  of  thorns  on  His  head,  but  on  the  cross,  often  without 
it. 

<  Friedlieb,  Archaol.,  140. 


Part  VII.]  INSCRIPTION   ON  THE   CROSS. 


553 


benevoleot  women  of  Jerusalem,  and  brought  to  those  condemned  to 
this  punishment. 

In  this  view  of  the  matter,  there  were  two  potions  offered  to  the 
Lord  before  He  was  nailed  to  the  cross;  one  of  wine  and  gall,  offered, 
as  said  by  Lightfoot,  "for  greater  mockage  and  out  of  rancor";  this 
He  tasted  but  would  not  drink ;  and  one  of  wine  and  myrrh,  which 
He  did  not  take  because  of  its  stupefying  effect.  Others,  however, 
think  that  Matthew  and  Mark  refer  to  the  same  potion,  "myrrh  "  and 
"gall"  being  general  terms  for  bitter  substances,  and  put  here  for  the 
whole  class.  (So  Alexander;  Keil,  "the  same  drink  with  different 
name.") 

The  InscriiMon.  It  was  customary  with  the  Romans  to  affix  to  the 
cross  an  inscription  or  superscription  —  titulus,  tItXos,  airia,  iwiypatp-q 
—  giving  the  name  of  the  criminal  and  the  nature  of  his  crime. 
Whether,  written  upon  a  tablet,  it  was  borne  before  the  criminal,  or 
hung  upon  his  neck,  or  was  attached  to  the  cross,  is  uncertain;  but, 
on  reaching  the  place  of  execution,  it  was  set  up  over  his  head.  As 
this  inscription  is  differently  given  by  the  Evangelists,  it  has  been 
conjectured  that  it  was  differently  Avritten  in  the  Greek,  Latin,  and 
Hebrew.'  Pilate,  who  as  judge  prepared  the  inscription,  took  occa- 
sion to  gratify  his  scorn  of  the  Jews  who  had  so  thwarted  him ;  and 
his  short  and  decisive  answer,  when  he  was  requested  by  them  to 
change  it,  "What  I  have  written,  I  have  written,"  shows  the  bitter- 
ness of  his  resentment.  Greswell  and  Edersheim  sujjpose  this  request 
may  have  been  made  before  the  arrival  at  Calvary,  but  probably  it  was 
after  the  cross  was  set  up.  It  seems  to  have  been  a  formal  request, 
probably  made  at  the  Prsetorium  by  the  chief  priests  in  a  body. 

We  give  the  superscription  in  a  tabular  form : 


Matt,  xxvii.  37. 


Mark  xv.  26. 


Luke  xxiii. 


John  xix.  19. 


This  is  Jesus 

The 

King  of  the  Jews. 


The 
King  of  the  Jews. 


This  is 

The 

King  of  the  Jews. 


Jesus  of  Nazareth 

The 
King  of  the  Jews. 


The  designation  of  the  offense  is  the  same  in  all  the  Evangelists, — 
"  The  King  of  the  Jews";  the  words  before  it  are  merely  introduc- 
tory or  explanatory,  and  might  have  been  wholly  omitted,  as  by 
Mark,  without  leaving  less  clear  the  nature  of  the  offense  or  the  per- 
son of  the  offender.  Probably  Pilate  wrote  it  in  Latin,  the  official 
tongue ;  and  then  himself  or  another  translated  it  into  Hebrew,  the 


1  Pearson  on  The  Creed,  Art.  4. 
24 


Langen,  323. 


554  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIl. 

language  of  the  laud;  aud  into  Greek,  which  was  very  generally 
sijoken,  esjoecially  by  the  Jews  from  other  countries.'  That  Pilate 
was  justified  in  setting  up  this  inscription  is  shown  in  the  fact  that 
this  was  the  accusation  of  the  rulers  (Luke  xxiii.  2),  and  the  ground 
on  which  he  had  condemned  Him. 

From  the  silence  of  the  Evangelists  as  to  any  inscriptions  over  the 
malefactors,  it  cannot  be  inferred  that  there  were  none.  It  is  said 
that  it  was  by  these  that  the  Empress  Helena  (326  A.  D.)  was  first 
able  to  distinguish  the  cross  of  the  Lord. 

The  two  Malefactors.  With  Jesus  were  crucified  two  malefactors, 
of  whom  we  know  nothing,  but  who  may  have  been  companions  of 
Barabbas.''  One  early  tradition  makes  them  to  have  been  two  robbers, 
named  Titus  and  Dumachus,  whom  Jesus  met  in  Egypt;  and  it  is  said 
that  He  then  predicted  that  both  should  be  crucified  with  Him.'  An- 
other tradition  gives  their  names  as  Gestas  and  Dysmas.  It  is  prob- 
able that  both  were  Jews,  and  certainly  the  penitent  one,  as  appears 
from  his  request  to  the  Lord.  Some  have  conjectured  that  he  had 
been  earlier  one  of  His  followers,  but  had  fallen  away.  The  Lord's 
position  between  the  two  was  probably  directed  by  Pilate  to  spite  the 
priests  and  to  cast  contempt  on  their  Messianic  hopes ;  but  it  may  have 
been  done  by  the  soldiers ;  it  is  not  likely  that  the  priests  directed  in 
the  matter.  Greswell  (iii.  246),  from  John  xix.  32,  33,  conjectures 
that  the  crosses  of  the  two  malefactors  looked  to  the  west,  but  that  of 
Jesus  to  the  east.     Tradition  makes  His  to  have  looked  to  the  west.* 

The  prayer,  "  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  what  they 
do,"  given  only  by  Luke  (xxiii.  34),  was  probably  spoken  while  the 
soldiers  were  nailing  Him  to  the  cross,  or  immediately  after.  It 
doubtless  embraced  all  who  took  part  in  His  crucifixion  —  not  only 
the  soldiers,  who  were  compelled  to  obey  the  orders  given  them,  but 
the  Jewish  priests  and  elders,  and  the  Eoman  governor — all  who 
had  caused  His  sufferings. 

The  garments  of  the  crucified  belonged  to  the  soldiers  as  their 
spoil.  After  the  four  appointed  to  this  duty  had  divided  His  gar- 
ments, they  sat  down  to  watcli  the  crosses. 


1  SeeMerivale.  Rom.  Hist.,  iv.  392;  McClel.,  506;  Jones,  409. 

2  As  to  the  abundance  of  thieves  and  robbers  at  this  time  and  its  causes,  see  Li|,ht 
foot  on  Matt,  xxvii.  38.  3  Hofmann,  176. 

*  Hofmann,  376. 


Part  VII.]  JESUS   UPON   THE   CROSS.  555 

Friday,  15th  Nisan,  7th  April,  783.     A.  D.   30. 

While  hanging  upon  the  cross,  the  multitudes,     Matt,  xxvii.  39^t4. 
as  they  pass  by,  revile  and  deride  Him.     In  this    Mark  xv.  29-32. 
mockery  the  high  priests  and  scribes  and  elders,  and    Luke  xxiii.  35-43. 
even  the  two  malefactors,  join.     From  the  cross, 
beholding  His  mother  standing  near  by  with  John,    John  xix.  25-27. 
He   commends  him  to  her  as  her  son,  and  her  to 
him  as  his  mother;  and  John  takes  her  to  his  own 

house.     Darkness  now  overspreads  the  land  from    Matt,  xxvii.  45-56. 
the  sixth  to  the  ninth  hour,  and  during  this  period    Mark  xv.  33-41. 
He  suffers  in  silence.     Afterward  drink  is  given    Luke  xxiii.  44^49. 
Him,  and  after  He  has  drunk  He  commends  His    John  xix.  28-30. 
spirit  to  God,  and  dies.    At  this  moment  the  veil 
of  the  temple  is  rent,  the  earth  shakes,  the  rocks 
are  rent,  and  graves  opened.     The  centurion  bears 
witness  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  multi- 
tude return  smiting  their  breasts. 

The  place  of  crucifixion  being  near  the  city,  and  great 
multitudes  being  gathered  at  the  feast,  it  was  natural  that 
crowds  should  come  to  look  upon  Him,  whom  all  knew  by 
reputation,  and  many  in  person.  From  the  time  of  the  cruci- 
fixion to  the  time  when  the  darkness  began,  sufficient  time 
elapsed  to  allow  His  enemies,  who  hastened  to  the  spot,  to 
behold  Him  upon  the  cross.  Matthew  (xxvii.  39-44)  divides 
those  who  reviled  Him  into  three  classes:  the  passers-by;  the 
chief  priests,  elders,  and  scribes;  and  the  malefactors.  (So 
Mark  xv.  29-32.)  Luke  says,  that  "the  rulers  with  the  people 
derided  Him,"  which  implies  that  the  rulers  began  the  mockery. 
He  adds  that  "the  soldiers  also  mocked  Him,  coming  to  Him, 
and  offering  Him  vinegar."  Some,  as  Stier,  would  identify  this 
with  the  offer  to  Him  of  the  mixed  wine  as  He  was  about  to  be 
nailed  to  the  cross;  some,  as  Lichtenstein,  to  the  giving  of  the 
vinegar  just  before  His  death.  Most  probably,  however,  it  is  to 
be  distinguished  from  these,  and  refers  to  something  done  a  little 
before  the  darkness  began ;  perhaps,  as  the  soldiers  were  eating 
their  dinner  near  the  cross.'  The  vinegar  was  doubtless  the 
sour  wine,  or  2^osca,  which  they  usually  drank.  Their  offers 
were  in  derision,  no  wine  being  actually  given.  It  is  called  by 
Meyer,  "  a  mocking  offer,  not  an  actual  giving  to  drink." 


1  Greswell,  Alford.    Keil  regards  it  as  a  summary  statement  of  the  mockings  to 
which  He  was  subject. 


556  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII 

It  is  not  certain  whether  both  of  the  malefactors  reviled  the 
Lord,  or  but  one.  Matthew  and  Mark  speak  of  both;  Luke,  of 
but  one.  According  to  some,  both  joined  at  first  in  the  general 
derision;  but,  beholding  the  godlike  patience  and  forbearance  of 
Jesus,  and  knowing  on  what  grounds  He  was  condemned,  one 
repented,  and  began  to  reprove  his  more  wicked  companion.' 
The  obvious  objection,  however,  to  this  is,  that  the  first  act  of 
one  so  converted  could  scarcely  be  to  reprove  in  another  what 
he  had  but  a  few  moments  before  been  guilty  of  himself.  This, 
perhaps,  is  more  plausible  than  sound.  Most,  after  Augustine, 
suppose  that  Matthew  and  Mark  speak  in  general  terms  of  them 
as  a  class  of  the  pei'sons  that  joined  in  deriding  Jesus,  but  without 
meaning  to  say  that  both  actually  derided  Him.^  At  what  time 
the  words  were  spoken  by  the  Lord  to  the  penitent  thief,  we  are 
not  told.  Most  place  them  before  His  words  to  His  mother  and 
to  John  (John  xix.  25-27).^  They  were  thus  the  second  words 
spoken  from  the  cross. 

We  cannot  determine  whether  the  mother  of  Jesus,  or  any 
of  the  women  that  followed  Him  from  Galilee,  or  any  of  the 
apostles,  was  present  at  the  time  when  He  was  nailed  to  the  cross ; 
but  if  not  there,  some  of  them  soon  after  came,  doubtless  hoping 
to  comfort  Him  by  their  presence.  For  a  time,  they  would 
naturally  stand  at  a  distance  till  the  first  outbreaks  of  anger  and 
mockery  were  past,  and  His  chief  enemies,  satiated  with  the 
spectacle,  had  withdrawn.  The  statement  of  the  Synoptists 
(Matt,  xxvii.  55,  56;  Mark  xv.  40,  41;  Luke  xxiii.  49),  that  His 
acquaintance,  and  the  women  that  followed  Him  from  Galilee, 
stood  afar  off,  seems  to  refer  to  a  later  period,  and  after  the 
darkness;  perhaps,  to  the  moment  of  His  death.  The  incident 
narrated  by  John  of  the  commendation  of  the  Virgin  mother  to 
him,  may  thus  have  been  a  little  before  the  darkness  began ;  and 
after  this  the  disciples,  terrified  by  it  and  by  the  signs  that 
attended  His  death,  may  not  have  dared  to  approach  the  cross. 
Krafft,  however  (150),  supposes  that  it  was  after  the  darkness 


1  So  early,  many;  recently,  Lange. 

2  Ebrard,  Da  Costa,  Lichtenstein,  Edersheim.  Meyer  finds  two  traditions;  and 
Alford,  that  Matthew  and  Mark  report  more  generally  and  less  accurately  than  Luke 
For  a  statement  of  opinions,  see  Bynaeus,  iii.  367. 

3  Ebrard,  Stier,  Da  Costa,  Greswell. 


Part  VII.]  JESUS  AND  HIS  MOTHER.  557 

that  His  mother  and  Jolm,  with  the  other  women,  approached 
Him,  and  that  the  Synoptists  refer  to  an  earlier  period. 

According  to  many,  John  at  once  took  Mary  to  his  home,  or  to 
the  house  he  was  occupying  during  the  feast;  for  it  does  not  appear 
otherwise  that  he  had  any  house  in  Jerusalem  of  his  own.'  A 
confirmation  of  this  is' found  in  the  fact  that  the  Synoptists  do  not 
mention  her  name  among  those  that  beheld  afar  off  at  the  hour  of 
His  death.  It  has,  therefore,  been  inferred  that  Jesus,  in  his 
compassion,  would  spare  her  the  pain  of  seeing  His  dying  agonies, 
and  so  provided  that  she  be  taken  away.^  But  it  may  be  ques- 
tioned whether  the  words,  "And  from  that  hour  that  disciple 
took  her  unto  his  own  house,"  mean  any  more  than  that  ever 
after  this  she  was  a  member  of  John's  household,  and  was 
treated  by  him  as  a  mother.^  But  if  John  then  led  Mary  away 
from  the  place  of  crucifixion,  he  must  afterward  have  returned, 
as  he  declares  himself  to  have  been  an  eye-witness  of  the  pierc- 
ing of  the  side,  and  the  flowing  out  of  the  blood  and  water 
(xix.  35).  Whether  he  was  the  only  apostle  present  at  the  Lord's 
death,  is  matter  of  conjecture.  This  is  supposed  by  Stier;  but 
there  is  no  good  reason  why  others,  if  not  daring  to  approach 
near,  should  not  have  looked  on  from  a  distance. 

That  the  darkness,  which  is  not  mentioned  by  John,  was  no 
natural  darkening  of  the  sun,  but  a  supernatural  event,  is  re- 
cognized by  all  who  do  not  wholly  deny  the  supernatural  element 
in  the  Gospel  narratives.  The  reading  in  Luke  xxiii.  44,  45 
is  in  question.  (For  the  T.  R.,  "The  sun  was  darkened,"  Tisch., 
W.  and  H.,  and  others  substitute  tov  rjXiov  eK-XsLTrovTog.  K 
v.,  "  The  sun's  light  failing."  See  T.  G.  Lex.,  eK/ieiTTO).  Meyer 
regards  the  last  reading  as  a  gloss.)  But  the  new  reading  does 
not  affect  the  miraculous  element,  as  it  does  not  explain  the 
cause  of  the  sun's  light  failing.  The  attempt  to  bring  it  into 
connection  with  the  eclipse  mentioned  by  Phlegon  of  Tralles, 
has  been  already  mentioned;  and  that  it  could  have  been 
caused  in  such  a  way  is  disproved  by  the  fact  that  it  was  then 
full  moon.*     Some,  however,  would  connect  it  with  the  earth- 


^  Townson,  Greswell,  Stier,  Meyer. 

2  Bengal. 

3  Luthardt,  ii.  421;  Lichtenstein,  448. 

*  The  attempt  of  Seyffarth  to  show  that  the  Jews  might  then  have  kept  the  Pass- 
over on  the  25th  March,  finds  no  defenders.    See  Winer,  ii.  482  ;  Langen,  342. 


558  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII 

quake,  and  explain  it  as  the  deep  gloom  that  not  unfrequently 
precedes  such  convulsions  of  nature.'  But  this  supposes  that 
the  earthquake  was  a  mere  natural  event,  whereas  this  also  was 
plainly  extraordinary.  Meyer:  "Not  an  ordinary  earthquake, 
but  a  supernatural  phenomenon."  The  darkness  began  at  the 
sixth  hour,  or  twelve  m.,  and  continued  till  the  ninth,  or  three 
p.  M.  According  to  Caspari,  the  Lord  was  crucified  at  the  sixth 
hour,  and  then  the  darkness  began.  Hengstenberg  also  makes 
the  darkness  to  have  begun  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion,  but 
at  the  thitd  hour.  "Whether  the  darkness  came  gradually,  and 
gradually  ceased,  is  not  said;  many  held  its  beginning  and  end- 
ing to  have  been  sudden.  The  forms  of  expression,  "  over  all 
the  land,"  rraaav  Trjv  yrjv  (Matthew),  "over  the  whole  land," 
oXr)v  TTjv  yrjv  (Mark  and  Luke),  do  not  determine  how  far  the 
darkness  extended.  Many  would  confine  it  to  the  land  of 
Judaea,  as  our  version  does,  except  in  Luke  where  it  is  rendered, 
"over  all  the  earth."''  If,  however,  it  extended  beyond  Judaea, 
the  phrase  "  whole  earth  "  need  not  be  taken  in  its  most  literal 
sense,  but  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  general  expression,  embracing 
the  countries  adjacent.  ^  Some,  however,  would  extend  it  over 
all  that  part  of  the  earth  on  which  the  sun  was  then  shining.* 

That  during  this  period  of  darkness  many  of  the  bystanders 
should  have  left  the  place  of  crucifixion  and  returned  to  the 
city,  is  probable,  though  not  stated.  Stier,  however,  affirms  : 
"No  man  dares  to  go  away,  all  are  laid  under  a  spell;  others, 
rather,  are  attracted  to  the  place."  But  when  we  consider  that 
the  Lord's  enemies  would  naturally  construe  the  -dai'kness  as  a 
sign  of  God's  anger  against  Him,  if  they  gave  it  any  super- 
natural character,  any  such  fear  can  scarce  be  attributed  to 
them;  nor  does  it  appear  in  their  subsequent  conduct.  That 
some  of  the  spectators  remained,  appears  from  Matthew's  words 
(xxvii.  47),  that  there  were  some  standing  there  when  He  called 
for  Elias.  (See  also  Luke  xxiii.  48.)  It  is  probable,  though  not 
explicitly  stated,   that  the  darkness   began  to  disperse   a   few 


1  Paulus,  Handbuch,  iii.  764;  contra,  Nebe,  ii.  302. 

«  So  Ebrard,  Olshausen,  A.  Clark,  Keil,  Norton,  who  renders  it,  "  over  the  whole 
country." 

8  Meyer,  Lange,  Nebe. 

♦  So  Alford,  who  makes  the  fact  of  the  darkness  at  Jerusalem  all  that  the  Evan 
geliets  testify  to  as  within  their  personal  knowledge. 


Part  VII.]  THE  lord's  last  words.  SS9 

moments  before  the  Lord's  death,  and  that  the  returning  hght 
emboldened  His  enemies  to  renew  their  mockeries.' 

The  cry  of  Jesus,  "  EH,  Eh,  lama  sabachthani  " — "  My  God, 
my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?  "  was  about  the  ninth 
hour;  either  a  little  before  the  cessation  of  the  darkness,^  or 
Just  after  its  cessation.'  So  far  as  appears,  during  the  three 
h.ours  of  gloom,  the  Lord  was  silent,  and  doubtless  all  were 
silent  around  Him.  But  by  whom  were  His  words  understood 
as  a  call  for  Ellas  ?  From  the  similarity  of  sound,  the  Roman 
soldiers  might  have  so  misunderstood  Him;  but  it  is  not  prob- 
able that  they  knew  much  of  the  current  Jewish  expectations 
respecting  Elias  as  the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah.  Lightfoot 
explains  it,  that  the  word  "  Eli "  is  not  properly  Syriac,  and 
thus  was  strange  to  the  Syrian  ear  and  deceived  the  standers-by. 
But  such  a  misunderstanding  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  whether 
they  were  from  Judaea  or  from  other  lands,  is  not  easily  credi- 
ble. Some  affirm  that  the  Jews,  terrified  by  the  darkness,  now 
began  to  fear  that  the  day  of  God's  judgment  was  actually  at 
hand;  and,  in  their  superstitious  terror,  naturally  interpreted 
Christ's  words  as  a  call  for  him,  the  prophet  whose  coming  was 
closely  connected  in  their  minds  with  the  great  day  of  God.* 
But  this  is  not  consistent  with  what  follows.  The  general  view, 
therefore,  seems  to  be  the  right  one,  that  they  were  Jews,  who 
wilfully  perverted  His  meaning,  and  made  the  cry  of  distress  an 
occasion  of  new  insult  and  ridicule.^ 

In  immediate  connection  with  the  words  of  the  bystanders, 
"this  man  calleth  for  Elias,"  one  of  them  is  said  by  Matthew 
and  Mark  to  have  run,  and  taking  a  sponge  and  filling  it  with 
vinegar,  gives  Him  a  drink.  This  act,  which  in  the  Synoptists 
seems  unexplained,  may  have  followed  from  His  words  which 
are  recorded  only  by  John  (xix.  28),  "  I  thirst."  We  may  thus 
arrange  the  events:  Immediately  after  His  exclamation,  "  My 
God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  He  adds,  "  I  thirst."  One 
of  those  present,  perhaps  a  soldier,  perhaps  a  spectator,  moved 
by  a  sudden  feeling  of  compassion,  prepares  the  vinegar  or  sour 


1  Stier,  Lichtenstein. 

2  Stier,  Ellicott.  3  Greewell. 
*  Olshausen,  Lange,  Jones. 

6  Meyer,  Alexander,  Alford,  Priedlieb,  Ellicott,  Keil. 


560  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  VlJL 

wine,  the  drink  of  the  Eoman  soldiers,  which  was  at  hand, 
and  makes  ready  to  give  Him  to  drink.  While  doing  this, 
the  others  call  upon  him  to  wait  a  little,  that  they  may  see 
whether  Elias  will  come  to  save  Him  (Matt,  xxvii.  49).  He, 
however,  gives  Jesus  the  drink,  and  then  adds,  either  to  con- 
ceal his  compassionate  impulse  or  as  ashamed  of  it,  "  Let 
alone,  now  we  will  wait  for  Elias"  (Mark  xv.  36).  Thus  the 
words  of  Matthew  will  be  those  of  the  spectators;  those  of  Mark 
the  words  of  the  giver  of  the  drink.  John  (xix.  29)  omits  this 
mockery,  and  merely  says  in  general  terms,  "  they  filled  a  sponge 
with  vinegar,"  etc.  Luke's  words  (xxiii.  36)  may  be  referred  to 
earlier  mockeries.' 

After  Jesus  had  received  the  vinegar.  He  cried  out  with  a 
loud  voice,  "It  is  finished."  The  Evangelist  adds,  "  And  He 
bowed  His  head  and  gave  up  the  ghost  "  (John  xix.  30).  Luke 
(xxiii.  46)  narrates  that  "When  He  had  cried  with  a  loud  voice. 
He  said.  Father,  into  Thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit:  and  hav- 
ing said  this.  He  gave  up  the  ghost."  Matthew  and  Mark  both 
mention  that  He  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  but  do  not  relate  what 
He  said.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  His  words  given  by 
John,  "  It  is  finished,"  were  spoken  before  those  given  by  Luke, 
"  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit."^  Having  taken 
the  vinegar,  which  gave  Him  a  momentary  relief  from  His 
thirst,  He  says,  feeling  that  the  end  was  at  hand,  "It  is  fin- 
ished." He  now  turns  to  God,  and,  addressing  to  Him  His 
dying  prayer,  bows  his  head  and  dies. 

The  order  of  the  words  spoken  by  our  Lord  from  the  cross 
may  be  thus  given:  —  Before  the  darkness:  1st.  His  prayer  for 
His  enemies.  2d.  His  promise  to  the  penitent  thief.  3d.  His 
charge  to  His  mother  and  to  John.  During  the  darkness:  4th. 
His  cry  of  distress  to  God.  After  the  darkness:  Sth.  His  ex- 
clamation, "I  thirst."  6th.  His  declaration,  "It  is  finished." 
Vth.  The  final  commendation  of  His  spirit  to  God.'  Ebrard 
would  thus  arrange  the  first  three:   1st.  His  prayer  for  His  ene- 


>  See  Stier,  viii.  14-18;  Alexander,  in  loco.  As  to  the  kind  of  drink  given  Him,  and 
the  motive  with  which  it  was  given,  see  various  suppositions  in  B3naeus,  iii.  423.  As  to 
the  hyssop  branch  on  which  the  sponge  was  put,  see  Royle,  Jour.  Sac  Lit.,  Oct.,  1849. 

*  Meyer,  Stier,  Da  Costa,  Alford  ;  contra.,  Neander. 

'  Stier,  Greswell,  and  many. 


Part  VII.]  ORDER   OF  THE   SEVEN   WORDS.  561 

mies.  2d.  His  charge  to  His  mother  and  John.  3d.  His  prom- 
ise to  the  penitent  thief.  Krafft's  order  is  as  follows:  1st.  His 
prayer  for  His  enemies.  2d.  His  promise  to  the  penitent  thief. 
3.  His  cry  of  distress  to  God.  4th.  His  charge  to  His  mother 
and  John.  5th.  His  exclamation,  "I  thirst."  6th.  "It  is  fin- 
ished."    7th.   Commendation  of  His  spirit  to  God. 

The  quaking  of  the  earth  and  the  rending  of  the  veil  of  the 
tenple  and  of  the  rocks,  appear  from  Matthew  and  Mark  to  have 
been  at  the  same  instant  as  His  death.  Luke  (xxiii.  45),  who 
mentions  only  the  rending  of  the  veil,  speaks  as  if  it  took  place 
when  the  sun  was  darkened,  but  his  language  is  general.  Mey- 
er's interpretation  of  the  statement  that  "there  was  a  darkness 
over  all  the  earth  until  the  ninth  hour,"  as  denoting  only  a  par- 
tial obscuration  of  the  sun,  but  that  at  the  ninth  hour  it  "  was 
darkened,"  and  wholly  disappeared  from  sight,  and  that  at  the 
same  moment  the  veil  of  the  temple  was  rent,  has  little  substan- 
tial in  its  favor.  Darkness,  in  which  the  sun  was  still  visible, 
could  scarcely  be  so  called.  The  first  statement,  verse  44,  is  the 
effect;  the  second,  verse  45,  the  cause.'  Perhaps  the  darkness 
may  have  deepened  in  intensity  to  near  its  close.  That  the  rend- 
ing of  the  veil  could  not  be  ascribed  to  an  earthquake,  however 
violent,  is  apparent.  There  were  two  veils,  one  before  the  holy 
and  one  before  the  most  holy  place  (Exod.  xxvi.  31-36).  It  is 
generally  agreed  that  the  latter  is  here  meant. 

The  account  given  by  Matthew  only  (xxvii.  52,  53),  of  the 
opening  of  the  graves  and  appearing  of  many  bodies  of  the 
saints,  some,  as  Norton,  have  rejected  as  an  interpolation.  There 
is,  however,  no  doubt  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  text.  The 
graves  seem  to  have  been  those  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of 
Jerusalem,  but  the  Evangelist  does  not  say  this.  That  those 
who  arose  are  called  "  saints  "  —  ayioi, —  does  not  determine 
who  are  meant ;  whether  some  who  had  died  recently,  perhaps 
since  Christ  began  His  ministry,  or  some  who  died  long  before 
and  had  been  buried  there,  perhaps  patriarchs  and  prophets. 
Some  of  the  early  fathers  affirmed  that  all  the  saints  from  the 
beginning  arose.  From  the  fact  that  they  appeared  to  many, 
the  presumption  is,  that  they  had  not  long  been  dead,  and  thus 


1  Oosterzee,  in  loco. 

34* 


563  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  Vll 

were  recognized  by  those  to  whom  they  appeared.  Tliat  their 
resurrection  was  after  Christ's  resurrection,  although  the  open- 
ing of  their  tombs  was  at  His  death,  best  harmonizes  with  the 
scope  of  the  narrative.  This,  however,  is  questioned  by  Meyer, 
who  supposes  the  Evangelists  to  say  that  they  came  out  of  the 
graves  at  His  death,  but  did  not  enter  the  holy  city  till  after 
His  resurrection ; '  after  He  had  arisen  they  appeared  openly, 
iheir  resurrection  thus  giving  force  and  meaning  to  His.  But  it 
was  the  Lord's  resurrection,  not  His  death,  that  opened  the  gates 
of  Hades.  Dying,  the  rocks  were  rent  and  the  doors  of  the 
sepulchres  were  opened  ;  but,  rising,  He  gave  life  to  the  dead.'' 
Da  Costa  (429)  places,  however,  the  opening  of  the  graves  also 
subsequent  to  the  resurrection.  "Whether  those  thus  raised  were 
raised  in  the  immortal  and  incorruptible  body,  and  soon  ascended 
to  heaven;  or  whether,  like  others,  they  died  again,  we  have  no 
means  of  determining.  The  language,  they  "  appeared  unto 
many,"  implies  that  they,  like  the  Lord  Himself  after  His  resur- 
rection, were  not  seen  by  all,  but  only  by  those  to  whom  they 
wished  to  manifest  themselves.^ 

The  impression  made  upon  the  centurion  by  all  the  wonder- 
ful events  accompanying  the  Lord's  death  was  such  that  he 
openly  testified  his  conviction  that  Jesus  was  "  The  Son  of  God  " 
(Matt,  and  Mark).  "  Certainly  this  was  a  righteous  man " 
(Luke).  How  much  these  expressions  may  have  meant,  for 
probably  at  different  times  he  uttered  both,  is  not  clear  ;  but 
probably  knowing  that  He  was  condemned  by  the  Jews  because 
He  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God,  he  meant  that  Jesus  was 
more  than  mere  man  —  a  demi-god  (Meyer)  —  and  was  wrongly 
condemned."  We  cannot  suppose  that  the  mystery  of  the  Incar- 
nation was  known  to  him. 


1  So  Bynaeus,  Nebe. 

2  Calvin,  Lightfoot,  Whitby,  A.  Clarke,  Calmet,  Greswell,  Kraflft,  Ebrard  Bengel, 
Alford. 

8  For  early  opinions,  see  Calmet,  translated  in  Journal  Sac.  Lit.  1848,  vol.  i.  See 
also  Lardner,  ix.  328;  Sepp,  vi.  401 

*  The  name  of  this  centurion  is  given  by  tradition  as  Longinus,  and  that  becoming 
a  believer,  he  was  afterwards  bishop  of  Cappadocia.    Hofmann,  380. 


Part  VIL]  CAUSE   OF  THE   LORD'S   DEATH.  563 

Friday,  15th  Nisan,  7th  April,  783.      A.  D.  30. 

Soon  after  the  Lord's  death,  the  chief  priests  come  to    John  xix.  31-37. 
Pilate,  requesting  that  the  bodies  ma)'  be  taken  down 
before  sunset,  because   the  next  day  is  the  Sabbath. 
Obtaining  their  request,  the  legs  of  the  two  malefactors 
are  broken  to  hasten  their  death;  but  Jesus,  being  found 
already  dead,  is  pierced  with  a  spear  in  the  side.     At  this    Matt,  xxvii.  57-60 
time,  Joseph  of  Arimathea  goes  to  Pilate,  and  inform-    John  xix.  38-43. 
ing  him   that   Jesus   is  already   dead,   asks   His  body    Mark  xv.  42-46. 
for  burial;    and  Pilate,   after    satisfying   himself   that    Luke  xxiii.  50-54c 
He  is  actually  dead,  orders  the  body  to  be  given  him. 
Aided  by  Nicodemus,  Joseph  takes  the  body  and  winding  ■ 

it  in  linen  clothes  with  spices,  lays  it  in  his  own  sepul- 
chre in  a  garden  near  the  cross,  and  shuts  up  the  sepul-    Lukk  xxiii.  55,  56. 
chre.     Some  women  beholding  where  He  is  laid,  and  re- 
turning home,  prepare  spices  and  ointments  that  they    Matt,  xxvii.  61. 
may  embalm  Him  after  the  Sabbath  is  past.     During    Makk  xv.  47. 
the  Sabbath  the  council  obtains  permission  from  Pilate 

to  seal  up  the  sepulchre,  and  set  a  watch,  lest  the  disci-    Matt,  xxvii.  62-66. 
pies  should  steal  the  body. 

It  was  tlie  custom  of  the  Romans  to  permit  the  body  to  re- 
main on  the  cross  till  it  was  consumed  by  the  birds  or  beasts  or 
wasted  by  corruption.  (Pearson,  The  Creed,  Art.  4.)  But  it  was 
an  express  command  of  the  law  (Deut.  xxi.  23),  that  the  body 
should  not  remain  all  night  upon  the  tree,  but  must  be  taken 
down  and  buried  the  same  day.'  Aside  from  this  command  of 
the  law,  it  was  probably  thought  desirable  by  the  rulers  that 
the  body  of  Jesus  should  be,  as  early  as  possible,  removed  from 
public  sight.  It  is  not  certain  whether  the  Jews  who  came  to 
Pilate  knew  that  He  was  actually  dead;  but  their  request  that 
the  legs  of  the  crucified  might  be  broken,  implies  that  they  did 
not.  If  so,  they  must  have  come  to  Pilate  about  three  p.  m.,  or 
a  Kttle  before  His  death.  If,  however,  they  did  know  that  He 
was  dead,  as  they  might  from  the  marked  circumstances  that  at- 
tended the  act  of  dissolution,  their  request  had  refei'ence  to  the 
two  malefactors,  who  were  still  living;  and  perhaps  also  was  de- 
signed to  make  the  death  of  Jesus  certain. °  That  the  natural 
effect  of  the  breaking  of  their  legs  would  be  to  hasten  death  is 
plain,   and  this  was  the   end   the   Jews   sought.     Usually   the 


1  Josephue,  War,  iv.  5.  2;  Josh.  x.  26. 

2  So  Meyer. 


564  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  Vil 

Romans  did  not  in  this,  or  any  other  way,  hasten  it;  though 
sometimes  the  crucified  were  subjected  to  personal  injuries,  as 
pounding  with  hammers  or  breaking  of  limbs,  in  order  to  in- 
crease their  sufferings.  The  term  crurifragium,  though  literally 
applicable  only  to  the  breaking  of  the  legs,  and  which  sometimes 
constituted  a  separate  punishment,  seems  to  have  been  applied  to 
various  other  acts  which  tended  to  increase  the  pain,  and  so 
to  shorten  life;  and  may  have  included  the  use  of  the  spear. 
(Zoeckler,  418.)  The  Jews  did  not  wish  to  increase  their  suffer- 
ings, but  to  hasten  death;  and  we  may  well  suppose  that  the 
soldiers  were  directed,  if  the  breaking  of  the  legs  should  not 
prove  sufficient,  to  use  other  means.'  "Whether,  in  addition  to 
the  breaking  of  the  legs  of  the  two  malefactors,  other  violent  means 
were  used,  is  not  certain;  but  the  narrative  does  not  imply  it. 

The  object  of  piercing  the  Lord's  side  was  not  so  much  to 
cause  death  as  to  make  sure  that  he  was  already  dead.  Which 
side  was  pierced,  is  not  said;  and  the  painters,  as  weli  as  the 
commentators,  have  been  divided  in  opinion;  most,  however, 
suppose  the  left  side.  This,  as  will  be  seen,  has  a  bearing  on 
the  cause  of  the  Lord's  death.  With  what  intent  does  the  Evan- 
gelist mention  the  flowing  out  of  the  blood  and  the  water  ? 
Does  he  mention  it  as  a  simple  physiological  fact,  and  in  proof 
of  the  Lord's  death ;  or  as  a  supernatural  event  to  which  he  at- 
taches some  special  significance  ?  And  here  some  questions 
arise  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  death,  and  its  physical 
cause. 

First  of  all  is  the  inquiry,  whether  He  died  as  other  cru- 
cified persons  died,  death  being  the  natural  consequence  of  his 
bodily  sufferings  ;  or  whether  He  gave  up  His  hie  by  an  imme- 
diate act  of  His  own  will,  or  by  an  immediate  act  of  His 
Father  in  answer  to  His  prayer.  The  latter  view  seems  to 
have  prevailed  in  the  early  Church,  though  by  no  means 
universally.  (See  Stroud,  Physical  Cause  of  Chrisfs  Death, 
London,  1847.)  Of  recent  writers,  Tholuck  says  :  "By  an  act 
of  power  the  Redeemer  actually  separated  His  spirit  from  His 
body,  and  placed  it,  as  a  deposit,  in  His  Father's  keeping."  Alford 
observes:    "It   was   His  own  act,   no  feeling  the  approach  of 


»  Friedlieb,  Archaol.,  l&l. 


Part  VII.]  THE  lord's  SPEEDY  DEATH.  565 

death,  as  some,  not  apprehending  the  matter,  have  commented, 
but  a  determined  dehvering  up  His  spirit  to  the  Father." 
This  Stier,  in  liJsie  manner,  says:  "He  dies,  as  the  act  of  His 
will,  in  full  vigor  of  life."  In  like  way  speak  Greswell,  Alex- 
ander, Jones,  Baumgarten.  If  this  opinion  he  correct,  and 
Jesus  died  by  His  own  act,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  it  can  be 
said  that  He  was  put  to  death  by  the  Jews.  His  crucifixion  was 
indeed,  in  the  large  sense  the  cause  of  His  death,  but  the  actual 
separation  of  soul  and  body  was  by  His  own  volition ;  it  would 
have  come  in  process  of  time,  but  He  anticipated  it.  There  is 
the  strong  objection  to  this,  that  it  clearly  tends  to  the  denial  of 
His  true  humanity,  and  throws  an  air  of  unreality  over  all  His 
sufferings.  That  which  would  have  been  suicide  in  another,  is 
not  to  be  imputed  to  Him  who  became  very  .man  for  our  salva- 
vation  (Heb.  ii.  17).  We,  therefore,  conclude  that,  though  He 
voluntarily  gave  Himself  to  death  (John  x.  17,  18),  and  sub- 
mitted to  be  nailed  to  the  cross,  yet  that  death  came  to  Him  as 
to  the  two  malefactors,  naturally,  not  supernaturally ;  and  was 
the  consequence  of  His  physical  sufferings  aggravated  by  mental 
distress.' 

Many,  however,  have  found  difficulty  in  explaining  in  this 
way  the  quickness  of  the  Lord's  death.  He  was  not  upon  the 
cross,  at  the  longest,  more  than  six  hours;  while  it  is  well 
known  tha,t  the  great  majority  of  the  crucified  live  at  least 
twelve  hours;  many,  one  or  two  days;  and  some,  three  or  four 
days  (Langen).  But  there  seems  no  valid  reason  why  we  may 
not  attribute  this  speedy  decease  to  the  physical  weakness  caused 
by  His  previous  bodily  and  mental  sufferings,  superadded  to  the 
ordinary  agonies  of  crucifixion.  That  those  sufferings  were 
most  intense,  we  know  from  the  account  given  of  the  hour 
passed  at  Gethsemane;  and  that  the  Lord,  already  exhausted  by 
His  great  spiritual  conflicts  with  the  power  of  darkness,  by  the 
excitement  and  fatigue  of  that  awful  night,  and  by  the  scourging 
inflicted  upon  Him,  should  have  died  so  much  sooner  than  was 


1  So  in  sul)stance,  Pearson,  Bloomfleld,  Stroud,  Ellicott.  We  may  perhaps  find  the 
word  Uniiio  —  (Mark  and  Luke),  "  gave  up  the  ghost,"—  proof  of  a  life  gradually  ebbing 
away,  a  breathing  slower  and  slower  to  the  end.  (See  Nebe,  ii.  365.)  The  expression  in 
John  (xi.x.  30)  that  "  He  gave  up  His  spirit"  (R.  V.)  no  more  shows  that  He  died  by  His 
own  volition  at  that  moment  than  Stephen's  words  (Acts  vii.  17;,  "Lord  Jesus,  receive 
my  spirit,"  show  that  he  died  by  his  free  act. 


566  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  Vll. 

usually  the  case,  can  excite  no  surprise.  Nor  do  the  objections 
based  upon  the  natural  vigor  and  healthfuhiess  of  the  Lord's 
body,  the  short  duration  of  His  mental  agony  in  the  garden, 
and  the  proof  of  unabated  physical  strength  shown  by  the  loud- 
ness of  voice  with  which  He  uttered  His  last  words  upon  the 
cross,  seem  of  much  weight.' 

Those  who  regard  the  Lord's  death  as  a  natural  event,  yet 
one  whose  quick  consummation  is  not  adequately  explained  by 
the  pains  attendant  upon  His  crucifixion,  are  forced  to  give  an- 
other explanation.  Of  these,  several  have  been  presented. 
One  is  that  of  Stroud,  that  the  immediate  physical  cause  was 
rupture  of  the  heart,  caused  by  the  great  mental  suffering  He 
endured  (pp.  74,  143).  Another  attributes  His  death  to  the 
piercing  of  the  spear,  but  this  is  so  directly  at  variance  with  the 
narrative  (John  xix.  30,  33)  that  after  receiving  the  vinegar 
"He  bowed  His  head  and  gave  up  the  ghost,"  and  that  the 
soldiers,  when  they  came  to  break  His  legs,  saw  that  He  was 
already  dead,  that  this  explanation  may  be  at  once  dismissed. 
But,  as  the  explanation  of  Stroud,  which  has  its  chief  support 
in  the  flowing  of  the  blood  and  water  from  the  Lord's  pierced 
side,  has  found  much  acceptance,  we  must  briefly  consider  it. 

Does  John  here  narrate  a  natural  or  a  supernatural  event  ? 
And  with  what  purpose  is  it  mentioned  ?  That  he  attached 
some  special  importance  to  it,  is  apparent  from  his  words  (verse 
35)  which  seem  chiefly  to  refer  to  it,  though  the  reference  may 
be  to  all  related  by  him  in  verses  32-34.  But  commentators 
are  by  no  means  agreed  in  opinion  that  the  Evangelist  regarded 
it  as  supernatural.^ 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  Evangelist  regarded  the  flowing 
of  the  blood  and  water  as  a  natural  event.  Why  did  he  men- 
tion it  ?  Some  say,  to  prove  the  validity  of  the  Lord's  body 
as  against  the  Docetae.  (So  Coleridge  in  Stroud:  "The  effu- 
sion showed  the  human  nature.  It  was  real  blood,  and  not  a 
mere  celestial   ichor,    as   the   Phantasmatists   allege."      So,    in 


'  As  to  the  pains  of  crucifixion,  and  their  natural  effects  in  destroying  life,  see 
Richter  in  Friedlicb,  Archaol.,  155. 

2  On  the  one  side  may  be  mentioned  Calvin  who  says:  '''■  HaUunnaii  sunt  quidam 
miracidum  hie  Jingentes;  in  the  same  way,  Clarke,  Tholuck,  Ebrard,  Ewald,  Alford; 
on  the  other  side,  Lightfoot,  Bengel,  Greswell,  Meyer,  Luthardt,  Godet. 


Part  VII.]  PHYSICAL  CAUSE  OF  THE  LORD's  DEATH.  56'? 

substance,  Alford.)  But  the  reality  of  His  body  had  been 
proved  in  a  thousand  ways  during  His  life;  and  if  His  body, 
sensible  to  touch  and  sight,  was  a  phantom,  so  much  more 
easily  might  be  this  seeming  blood  and  water.  But  grant- 
ing that  the  intention  of  the  Evangelists  was  to  show  the  re- 
ality of  His  death,  how  was  it  thus  shown  ?  Are  proper  blood 
and  water  here  rneant,  aqua  ijara  et  vera,  sanguis  puru^!  et  verus,  as 
said  by  Bengel  ?  No,  for  this  would  remove  it  into  the  region 
of  the  supernatural.  Have  we,  then,  in  these  terms,  merely  a 
hendiadys  for  reddish  lymph,  or  bloody  water  ?  This  is  inadmis- 
sible. Does  the  apostle  then  mean  blood  that  had  decomposed, 
and  was  thus  resolved  into  crassamentum  and  serum,  or  the 
thick  r3d  part  of  the  blood  and  the  aqueous  transparent  part  ? 
This  is  the  view  taken  by  many ;  and  it  is  said  that  we  have  in 
this,  conclusive  proof  not  only  of  His  death,  but  that  He  had 
also  been  some  time  dead,  since  the  blood  had  begun  to  decom- 
pose. Thus  Neander  says:  "I  must  believe  that  John,  as  an 
eye-witness,  meant  to  prove  that  Christ  was  really  dead  from 
the  nature  of  the  blood  that  flowed  from  the  wound." 

Admitting,  for  the  moment,  that  the  blood  and  water  were 
the  constituent  parts  of  blood  now  decomposed,  whence  came 
they  ?  According  to  Stroud,  from  the  pericardium,  into  which, 
through  the  rupture  of  the  heart,  there  was  a  great  effusion  of 
blood,  which  was  there  decomposed.  The  pericardium  be- 
ing pierced  by  the  spear,  it  flowed  in  crassamentum  and  serum, 
''  a  full  stream  of  clear  watery  liquid,  intermixed  with  clotted 
blood,  exactly  corresponding  to  the  clause  of  the  sacred  narra- 
tive." Ebrard  (563)  supposes  it  to  have  been  extravasated 
blood,  that,  flowing  into  some  of  the  internal  cavities  of  the 
chest,  there  decomposed,  and  these  cavities  being  opened  by  the 
spear,  the  constituent  parts  made  their  escape. 

Against  all  these  explanations  which  are  based  upon  the 
coagulation  of  the  blood,  and  aside  from  the  physiological  objec- 
tions to  which  they  are  open,  we  find  an  invincible  difficulty  in 
the  words  of  the  Psalmist,  that  God  would  not  suffer  His  Holy 
One  to  see  corruption  ;  and  in  the  declaration  of  St.  Peter,  that 
"  His  flesh  did  not  see  corruption."  His  body  was  not  to  see 
corruption,  or,  in  other  words,  the  usual  processes  of  decay  were 


568  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  Vli. 

not  to  commence  in  it.  Decomposition  of  the  blood  can  scarcely 
"be  considered  as  other  than  the  initial  step  of  corruption.  The 
full  separation  of  His  soul  and  His  body  must  take  place  ;  but. 
after  this,  he  "that  had  the  power  of  death"  had  no  more 
power  over  the  Holy  One. 

The  explanations  of  the  Griiners  who  think  the  Lord  not 
wholly  dead,  and  of  the  Bartholinos,'  are  free  from  this  difficulty, 
since  they  do  not  affirm  a  coagulation  of  the  blood.  The  former 
suppose  that  both  pericardium  and  heart  were  pierced  by  the 
spear,  and  that  from  the  former  came  the  water,  and  from  the 
latter  the  blood.  But  if  it  be  admitted  that  there  was  a  consid- 
erable quantity  of  water  in  the  pericardium,  it  is  difficult  to  ex- 
plain in  this  way  the  flowing  of  the  blood,  since  the  heart  of  a 
dead  person  is  usually  emptied  of  its  blood;  or,  if  any  remains, 
it  would  flow  very  slowly;  and  to  say  that  Jesus  was  not  wholly 
dead  when  pierced  with  the  spear,  is  contrary  to  the  sacred 
narrative.     (Tholuck  in  loco.) 

The  second  explanation,  that  of  the  Bartholines,  supposes 
that  the  water  and  blood  came  from  one  or  both  of  the  pleural 
sacs.  It  is  said  that,  during  the  sufferings  of  crucifixion,  a 
bloody  serum  was  effused  in  these  sacs  from  which,  when  pierced 
by  the  spear,  it  flowed  out.  But  aside  from  the  fact  that  such 
an  effusion  of  bloody  serum  or  lymph  as  the  narrative  demands 
is  not  proved  in  cases  of  crucified  persons,  if  indeed,  in  any  case 
whatever  ;  there  is  the  further  objection  that  such  bloody  serum 
does  not  answer  to  the  Evangehst's  "blood  and  water." 

The  view  of  Stroud  that  the  Lord  died  of  rupture  of  the 
heart,  has  found  some  medical  support.^ 


1  See  Stroud,  135-137. 

2  Prof.  Simpson  (in  Hanua  •'  The  last  Days  of  Christ,"  N.  Y.,  1864,  app.)  endorses 
it  "as  fundamentally  correct."  "  In  rupture  of  the  heart,  the  blood  escapes  from  the 
interior  of  the  heart  into  the  cavity  of  the  large  surrounding  heart-sac  or  pencardium, 
which  has  been  found  in  dissection  to  contain  three  or  more  pounds  of  blood  accu- 
mulated in  it  and  separated  into  red  clots  and  limpid  serum,  or  blood  and  water." 
Dr.  Struthers,  who  agrees  with  Simpson,  speaks  of  the  form  of  death  as  "  a  new  illus- 
tration of  the  awful  agony  which  our  Redeemer  must  have  suffered."  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  said  by  another  physician,  Biglie,  that  "  rupture  of  the  heart  is  comparatively 
a  rare  affection,  and  that  the  cases  on  record  are  limited  to  those  advanced  in  life,  or  to 
such  as  have  been  laboring  under  some  degeneration  of  the  structure  of  the  organ."  Of 
those  accepting  Stroud's  view,  are  Ewald,  Sepp,  Friedliob.  Rejecting  it,  are  West- 
cott,  who  thinks  Stroud's  theory  "inadequate  and  inconsistent  with  the  facts";  and 
Luthardt,  who  says  that  "  all  the  attempts  to  explain  the  manner  of  His  death  are  use- 
less."   In  this  general  result  agree  Weiss,  Ellicott,  Langen,  and  most. 


Part  VII.]      FLOWING   OF  THE   BLOOD   AND   WATER.  6^9 

We  conclude,  then,  that  the  attempts  to  explain  this  pKwiome- 
non  as  a  merely  natural  event,  and  upon  physiological  grounds, 
are  by  no  means  satisfactory,  and  that  we  must  regard  it  as  some- 
thing supernatural.'  It  is  not  within  our  scope  to  enquire  as  to 
its  special  significance.  It  may  have  been  a  sign  that  the  body 
of  the  Lord  was  not  under  the  common  law  of  corruption.  His 
spirit  had  departed  from  it,  and  with  it  that  vital  energy 
which  held  together  its  constituent  elements,  yet  disorganization 
and  dissolution  did  not  begin.  According  to  Lange,  it  was  a 
sign  that  a  change  in  the  body  preparatory  to  the  resurrection 
had  already  begun  ;  the  power  of  God  was  already  working  in 
it  to  prepare  it  for  immortality  and  incorruptibility.  The  same 
view  is  taken  by  G-odet :  "  The  body  which  sin  had  never 
tainted,  moved  forward  to  the  resurrection  without  having  to 
pass  through  dissolution." 

To  explain  the  facts  that  the  Lord  died  so  soon  after  the  nail- 
ing to  the  cross,  and  yet  that  He  still  had  much  bodily  strength, 
as  shown  in  "  the  loud  voice  "  with  which  He  commended  His 
spirit  into  His  Father's  hands,''  can  be  satisfactorily  done  with- 
out attributing  His  death  to  the  spear-thrust.  He  was  dead  be- 
fore this ;  this  thrust  was  only  to  make  sure  that  He  was  dead. 
To  explain  the  speedy  death,  we  need  not  say  that  He  put  an  end 
to  His  life  by  an  act  of  His  will,  or  that  He  died  of  rupture  of 
the  heart  caused  by  the  mental  agony  He  suffered.  The  burden 
that  had  been  upon  Him  all  the  week  of  the  Passion,  His  con- 
tests with  His  enemies,  the  treachery  of  Judas,  the  desertion  of 
the  apostles,  the  denials  of  Peter,  the  distress  in  Gethsemane, 
the  scourging  and  abuse,  the  pain  of  the  cross,  the  hiding  of  the 
Father's  face  —  all  these  serve  to  show  that  the  Lord  died,  as 
other  men  die,  through  the  entire  exhaustion  of  the  vital  forces. 
It  was  His  last  expiring  effort  when,  summoning  all  His  strength, 
He  commended  His  spirit  unto  His  Father. 

It  was  in  the  power  of  governors  of  provinces  to  grant  pri- 
vate burial  to  criminals  when  requested  by  friends,  and  this  was 


1  It  is  said  by  Cardinal  WiBeman,  Lectures^  163,  that  this  was  "  the  concurrent  senti- 
ment of  all  antiquity";  see  also,  Westcott,  additional  note  on  John  xix.  for  patristic 
interpretations. 

-  Luke  xsiii.  46,  McClellan  supposes  that  the  words  "  It  is  finished"  were  spoken 
in  a  loud  voice,  but  the  commendation  of  His  spirit,  in  a  low  tone. 


570  THE  LIFE  OE  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIl. 

usually  done  unless  they  were  very  mean  and  infamous.'  But 
for  the  request  of  Joseph  of  Arimathaea,  a  member  of  the  San- 
hedrin,  the  Lord's  body  would  probably  have  been  buried  in  some 
place  appropriated  to  criminals,  perhaps  where  the  two  male- 
factors were  buried.  "  They  that  were  put  to  death  by  the  coun- 
cil were  not  to  be  buried  in  the  sepulchres  of  their  fathers;  but 
two  burying  places  were  appointed  by  the  council,  one  for  those 
slain  by  the  sword  and  strangled,  the  other  for  those  who  were 
stoned  or  burnt."  "  Pilate  could  have  had  no  objection  to  grant- 
ing Joseph's  request,  as,  on  the  one  hand,  his  position  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Sanhedrin  entitled  him  to  a  favorable  hearing;  and, 
on  the  other,  he  was  not  unwilling  that  the  innocent  victim 
should  have  an  honorable  burial.  That  Joseph  made  the  re- 
quest at  the  solicitation  of  the  disciples,  as  said  by  Weiss,  is 
possible,  but  is  not  intimated.  (Mark  xv.  45.)  He  gave  the 
body  to  Joseph;  or,  more  literally,  made  a  gift  or  present  of  the 
body  to  him.  According  to  Mark  xv.  44,  Pilate  was  surprised 
that  He  was  already  dead ;  and,  calling  the  centurion  who  as  being 
on  the  spot,  was  aware  of  His  death  (verse  39),  made  inquiries 
how  long  He  had  been  dead. 

How  is  this  coming  of  Joseph  related  to  that  of  the  Jews 
(John  xix.  31)  who  asked  that  the  bodies  might  be  taken  down  ? 
We  may  suppose  that  the  Jews,  who  desired  that  all  the  crucified 
should  be  taken  down  before  the  Sabbath  began,  came  about 
3  p.  M.,  before  the  coming  of  Joseph,  and  were  ignorant  of  the 
Lord's  death.  Joseph  may  have  stood  near  the  cross  and  heard 
His  last  words,  and  thus  have  known  of  His  death  as  soon  as 
it  occurred.  He  went  to  Pilate  "when  the  even  was  come" 
(Matt,  xxvii.  57),  or  during  the  interval  from  3-6  p.m.,  and 
probably  very  soon  after  His  death.  Going  to  Pilate,  he  in- 
forms him  of  it,  and  the  latter,  knowing  that  sufficient  time  has 
not  elapsed  for  the  execution  of  the  order  respecting  the  break- 
ing of  the  legs,  already  given,  or  at  least  for  their  death  after 
their  legs  were  broken,  is  surprised.  The  Jews,  indeed,  may 
have  made  their  request  after  Joseph  liad  preferred  his,  and 
Pilate  may  have  given  the  soldiers  orders  to  make   sure  that 


'  Pearson,  Creed,  S32  ;  Weiss,  iii.  377. 
*  Lightfoot  on  Matt,  xxviii.  58. 


Part   VIL]  THE   BURIAL   OF   THE   BODY,  571 

Jesus  was  really  dead  ere  He  was  given  up  for  burial ;  but  the 
former  order  is  most  probable.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose 
that  Joseph  knew  of  the  permission  already  given  to  have  the 
bodies  taken  down,  though  he  might,  as  Luthardt  thinks,  have 
done  so. 

Joseph,  having  received  permission  to  take  the  body,  is  aided 
by  his  servants  or  by  the  soldiers  ;  and,  taking  it  down,  they 
wrap  it  in  linen  clothes  with  "  myrrh  and  aloes  about  an  hundred 
pound  weight,"  which  the  latter  had  brought,  and  lay  it  in  a  new 
sepulchre  in  a  garden  near  at  hand  which  belonged  to  Joseph.' 
It  has  been  questioned  whether  the  spices  were  actually  used, 
because  of  the  shortness  of  time,  but  John's  words  are  express 
that  the  spices  were  used.  It,  however,  remains  doubtful  whether 
the  customary  embalming  was  then  perfected.  Lardner  (x.  368) 
remarks  that '-all  was  done,  as  may  reasonably  be  supposed, 
after  the  best  manner,  by  the  hands  of  an  apothecary  or  con- 
fectioner, or  perfumer,  skilled  in  performing  funeral  rites. 
There  must  have  been  many  such  at  Jerusalem."  But  for  this 
there  was  plainly  no  time.  Norton  ^  makes  the  transactions  of 
anointing  and  burying  the  body  to  have  occupied  many  hours, 
and  the  dawn  of  the  Sabbath  to  have  appeared  ere  all  engaged 
in  them  had  left  the  tomb.  But  it  is  more  probable  that  Joseph 
and  Nicodemus  were  themselves  able  to  do  all  tliat  was  neces- 
sary to  be  done,  for  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  body 
was  embalmed  in  any  Egyptian  sense  of  that  term.  "  The  Egyp- 
tians filled  the  interior  of  the  body  with  spices,  but  the  Jews, 
who  buried  on  the  day  of  decease,  only  wrapped  the  body  round 
with  spices."'  It  is  probable  that  all  they  could  do  was  finished 
before  the  Sabbath  began.  If,  however,  the  body  was  then 
properly  prepared  for  its  burial,  why  did  the  women,  who  "be- 
held the  sepulchre  and  how  the  body  was  laid,"  prepare  addi- 
tional spices  and  ointments  ?  It  could  not  well  have  been  as  said 
by  Weiss,  from  ignorance  of  what  Nicodemus  had  done.  We 
must,  therefore,  suppose  that  this  further  anointing  was  some- 
thing customary;*  or  that  the  first  was  imperfect,  and  this  there- 


1  It  is  not  certain  tliat  Nicodemus  came  till  tlie  body  had  been  taken  from  the 
cross. 

2  Notes,  317. 

*  Michaelis  on  the  Resurrection,  93;  Greswell,  iii.  260,  note. 

*  Friedlieb,  Archaol.,  172. 


572  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIL 

fore  necessary  ;  or  that  it  was  a  mark  of  love  which  was  not  sat- 
isfied till  it  had  brought  superabundance.' 

Some  find  a  contradiction  between  Mark  and  Luke  in  that 
the  last  speaks  of  preparing  spices  and  ointments  on  Friday 
before  the  Sabbath  began,  and  the  first,  that  they  were  bought 
after  the  Sabbath  was  past.  If  we  admit  that  the  same  women 
are  meant,  which  is  not  certain,  it  may  be  that  their  preparations 
were  not  completed  the  first  day  and  were  resumed  when  the 
Sabbath  was  over. 

The  Lord  was  laid  in  the  tomb  on  Friday  before  sunset,  and 
nothing  further  could  be  done  by  the  disciples,  the  next  day  be- 
ing the  Sabbath  when  all  were  to  rest  according  to  the  com- 
mandment. But,  although  He  was  dead  and  buried,  the  rulers 
were  not  at  ease,  and  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees  came  to 
Pilate  desiring  that  the  door  of  the  sepulchre  might  be  sealed, 
and  a  watch  set,  to  prevent  the  disciples  from  stealing  the  body; 
alleging,  as  the  ground  of  their  fear.  His  words,  "  After  three 
days  I  will  rise  again."  At  what  time  this  request  was  made,  is 
in  question.  It  is  said  by  some  that  they  went  to  Pilate  on  the 
evening  following  the  burial,  perhaps  two  or  three  hours  later, 
the  object  being  to  secure  the  body  before  the  darkness  made 
its  theft  possible  (so  McKnight,  Bucher,  Jones).  And  if  they 
went  to  the  palace,  they  would  have  been  ceremonially  defiled 
and  unable  to  eat  the  peace  offering  of  that  day.  But  the  lan- 
guage of  Matthew:  "  Now  on  the  morrow,"  leads  us  rather  to 
think  of  the  morning  after,  but  at  how  early  an  hour  we  cannot 
tell;  nor  do  we  know  where  they  met  Pilate,  whether  at  his  pal- 
ace or  not.  The  whole  proceeding  was  a  violation  of  the  sanc- 
tity of  the  Sabbath. 

Meyer  regards  all  this  account  as  unhistorical,  chiefly  for  the 
reason  that  the  Pharisees  could  not  have  heard  Christ's  predic- 
tions respecting  His  resurrection;  or,  at  least,  could  not  have 
thought  them  worthy  of  attention;  and  that  if  the  disciples  did  not 
understand  or  believe  these  predictions,  much  less  would  His 
enemies.      But   this   by   no  means   follows.       He   had   openly 


1  Meyer,  Greswell ;  Alex,  on  Mark  xvi.  1.  Lange  regards  the  first  as  only  for  the 
preservation  of  the  body,  and  the  second  as  the  proper  anointing.  Jones  affirms  that,  as 
Joseph  and  Nicodemus  were  secret  disciples,  the  women  had  no  acquaintance  with  them 
and  did  not  know  their  purpose. 


Part  VII.]  SETTING   OP   THE   WATCH.  573 

spoken  of  His  death  and  resurrection  to  His  disciples  (Matt.  xvi. 
21 ;  xvii.  22,  23).  This  was  then  unintelligible  to  them,  because 
they  truly  believed  that  He  was  the  Christ  who  would  over- 
come all  His  enemies;  and  when  He  was  actually  crucified,  in 
their  grief  and  despair  all  remembrance  of  His  promise  seems  to 
have  escaped  them.  To  the  Pharisees  He  had  spoken  of  the 
sign  of  the  prophet  Jonah  as  to  be  fulfilled  in  Ilimself  (Matt, 
xii.  40);  and  now  that  He  was  dead,  they  must  have  thought 
of  its  actual  fulfillment.  Besides,  it  is  scarce  possible  that 
they  should  not,  through  some  of  the  disciples,  have  heard  of 
His  words  respecting  His  resurrection  spoken  to  them.  Judas 
must  have  known  what  his  Lord  said,  and  may  have  told  the 
priests.  They  were  far  too  sagacious  not  to  take  precautions 
against  all  possible  contingencies.  Even  if  they  did  not  believe 
His  resurrection  possible,  and  had  no  faith  in  His  words,  still  it 
was  wise  to  guard  against  the  stealing  of  the  body.  But  it  is 
not  certain  that  they  did  not  fear  that  He  would  rise.  Did  they 
not  know  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  ?  and  might  not  He 
who  then  bade  the  dead  arise,  Himself  come  forth  ?  In  their 
state  of  mind,  to  seal  the  stone  and  set  the  watch  was  a  very 
natural  precaution. 

But  why  was  not  the  body,  when  taken  from  the  cross,  at 
once  taken  charge  of  by  the  Pharisees,  and  not  delivered  into  the 
hands  of  His  disciples  ?  Very  likely  this  may  have  been  their 
purpose,  and  the  request  of  Joseph  for  the  body  may  have  been 
something  unknown  and  unexpected  to  them  ;  but  as  it  was 
given  to  him  by  permission  of  Pilate  they  could  not  interfere. 
It  was  of  no  importance  in  what  sepulchre  it  was  placed,  pro- 
vided it  was  secure;  and  doubtless  they  knew  that  it  was  in  the 
sepulchre  ere  they  sealed  the  stone.  When  the  stone  was  sealed, 
is  not  said,  but  probably  sometime  during  the  Sabbaih  (Matt, 
xxvii.  62).  "  The  prediction  of  our  Lord  was  that  He  \vould 
rise  the  third  day,  and  till  it  was  approaching  they  would 
give  themselves  no  concern  about  His  body.  The  absence 
of  it  from  the  tomb  before  the  commencement  of  that  day 
would  rather  falsify  the  prediction  than  show  the  truth  of  it."' 
Perhaps  they  relied  on  the  sanctity  of  the  Sabbath  as  a  sufficient 


1  Townson,  93. 


574  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

preventive  against  His  disciples,  and  thought  no  guard  necessary 
till  the  day  was  past.  Perhaps  they  supposed  at  first  that  with 
His  death  all  cause  of  apprehension  from  His  disciples  had  van- 
ished, and  that  afterward,  seeing  the  boldness  of  Joseph  and 
Nicodemus  in  the  matter  of  His  burial,  they  began  to  reflect, 
and  this  step  occurred  to  them.  Of  course  it  was  in  itself 
wholly  unimportant  when  the  stone  was  sealed,  provided  only 
that  the  body  was  then  there.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  they  would  give  any  publicity  to  their  acts,  and  the  women 
who  went  to  the  sepulchre  the  next  morning  seem  to  have  been 
ignorant  of  the  sealing  of  the  stone  and  setting  of  the  watch. 

That  the  account  is  given  by  Matthew  only,  is  readily  ex- 
plained from  the  fact  that  he  wrote  specially  for  the  Jews, 
among  whom  the  report  of  stealing  the  body  had  been  put  in 
circulation.  It  is  omitted  by  Mark  and  Luke,  who  wrote  for 
another  class  of  readers.' 

"We  give  a  summary  of  the  events  recorded  as  having  taken  place 
during  the  thirty-six  hours  that  elapsed  from  the  burial  to  the  resur- 
rection. They  are  few  :  the  purchase  of  spices  by  the  women  from 
Galilee  after  the  burial  on  Friday  afternoon,  and  before  the  Sabbath 
began,  or  before  sunset ;  the  sealing  of  the  sepulchre  and  setting  a 
watch  sometime  during  the  Sabbath;  the  purchase  of  more  spices 
after  the  Sabbath  was  ended,  or  after  sunset  of  Saturday.  Whether 
the  visit  of  the  two  Marys  to  see  the  sepulchre  (Matt,  xxviii.  1)  is  to 
be  put  at  the  close  of  the  Sabbath,  or  on  the  morning  following,  is 
a  disputed  point,  and  we  must  briefly  examine  it.  There  are  two 
points,  the  time  of  their  visit,  and  its  purpose. 

We  read,  A.  V. :  "In  the  end  of  the  Sabbath,  as  it  began  to  dawn 
toward  the  first  day  of  the  week,  came  "  etc. ;  R.  V. :  "  Now  late  on 
the  Sabbath  day,  as  it  began  to  dawn  toward  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  came"  etc.  The  interpretation  depends  mainly  on  the  force  of 
the  words 'Oi/'^  5^  o-a/3/3dra;v.^  Do  they  mean,  "  After  the  Sabbath  was 
ended,"  the  length  of  time  after  being  left  undefined?  Or,  "  Late  in 
the  Sabbath,  but  before  its  end  "  ?  (As  to  6^^,  see  T.  G.  Lex.,  suh 
voce\  Winer,  Gram.,  203.)  If  we  take  it  in  the  last  sense,  the  two 
Marys  came  to  the  sepulchre  just  before  the  close  of  the  Sabbath, — 
the  sunset  of  Saturday.  In  this  way  it  is  taken  by  Patritius  (Lib., 
iii.  546)  and  by  McClellan  (512),  who  remarks:  "  The  hour  specified 
undoubtedly  belongs  to  Saturday  evening,  not  to  Sunday  morning." 


1  SeeMichuelis  on  the  Resurrection,  98. 
*  As  to  eTnif>u)<TKu>.  Meyer,  in  loco. 


Part  VII.]      GOLGOTHA   AND   THE  HOLY   SEPULCHRE.       575 

It  is  said  by  Westcott :  ' '  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other  Mary  go  to 
view  the  sepulchre  just  before  6  p.  m.  on  Saturday  ";  and  Edersheim: 
"It  must  remain  uncertain  whether  Saturday  evening  or  early  Sun- 
day morning  is  meant."  But  it  is  a  valid  objection  to  Saturday  even- 
ing that,  if  the  two  women  came  at  this  time  to  see  the  sepulchre, 
they  must  have  returned  to  their  home  again  that  same  evening,  or 
have  remained  watching  at  the  tomb  all  the  night.  The  former  is 
said  by  McClellan  :  "They  returned  to  Bethany";  the  latter  by 
Chrysostom  (Hom.  on  Matt.  89).  But  this  night-watch  is  intrinsically 
improbable.  Seeing  on  their  arrival  the  guard  there,  they  must  have 
known  that  no  entrance  was  possible  so  long  as  the  guard  remained. 
If  they  departed  and  returned  again  at  early  dawn,  we  must  put  this 
departure  and  return  between  verses  1  and  2  of  Matthew  xxviii.,  of 
which  he  gives  no  hint.  But  the  weight  of  authority  is  in  favor  of 
the  received  rendering.  It  is  said  by  Meyer:  "We  are  not  to  sup- 
pose Saturday  evening  to  be  intended,  but  far  on  in  the  Saturday 
night,  toward  daybreak  on  Sunday."' 

The  second  point  is  the  object  of  the  women  in  this  early  visit  to 
the  sepulchre.  By  Matthew  it  is  said  that  they  came  "to  see  the 
sepulchre  " ;  by  Mark  and  Luke  that  they  might  anoint  the  body. 
The  discrepancy  is  unimportant  as  the  one  was  preparatory  to  the  other. 

Golgotha  and  the  Holy  Sejjulchre.  The  Lord  was  crucified  at  a 
place  called  in  the  Hebrew,  Golgotha,  and  His  body  was  laid  in 
a  sepulchre  in  a  garden  near  by.  Thus  two  points  are  before  us  : 
the  place  of  the  crucifixion  and  of  the  burial;  but  as  these  were 
near  each  other,  both  may  be  embraced  in  one  enquiry.  The 
site  of  this  sepulchre  has  been  much  discussed  and  with  great 
learning  and  ingenuity,  but  without  leading  to  any  certain  re- 
sult. For  many  centuries  the  Christian  Church  received,  with- 
out question,  the  traditionary  tomb  beneath  the  dome  of  the 
present  church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  as  that  to  which  He  was 
borne,  and  from  which  He  arose.  Of  this  belief  is  still  the  great 
body  of  Christians.  But  a  large  number  of  modern  travellers 
have  been  led,  by  a  personal  inspection  of  the  spot,  to  doubt  the 
tradition,  and  have  brought  very  cogent  arguments  against  it. 
Fortunately,  here,  as  often,  it  is  of  little  importance  whether  the 
traditionary  site  be  or  be  not  the  true  one.     The  fact  of  the 


*  So  Rob.,  Licht.,  Gardiner,  and  most.  It  is  rendered  by  Weizsacker:  Nach 
Ablauf  des  Sabbats  aber  in  Morgengrauen  des  ersten  Wochentages  kamen,  etc.  For 
early  opinions  see  Maldonatus,  in  loco;  for  later,  Nebe,  Anferstehungsqeschichte, 


57G  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

Lord's  resurrection  is  a  vital  one,  but  not  whether  He  arose  from 
a  tomb  in  tlie  valley  of  Jehosaphat,  or  on  the  side  of  Acra.  Nor 
is,  as  affirmed  by  Williams,'  "the  credit  of  the  whole  Church 
for  fifteen  hundred  years  in  some  measure  involved  in  its  ver- 
acity." Few  will  so  press  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  as  to 
deny  the  possibility  of  its  falling  into  a  topographical  error.  The 
little  value  attached  by  the  apostles  to  the  holy  places  appears 
from  the  brevity  with  which  they  speak  of  them  when  they  allude 
to  them  at  all.  Not  to  the  places  of  His  birth  and  of  His  burial 
would  they  turn  the  eyes  of  the  early  Christians,  but  to  Himself 
—  the  ever-living  One,  and  now  the  great  High  Priest  at  the 
right  hand  of  God. 

But  however  unimportant  in  itself,  either  as  confirmatory  of 
the  Gospel  narratives,  or  as  illustrating  the  Lord's  words,  still, 
as  a  point  that  has  so  greatly  interested  men,  it  may  not  be 
wholly  passed  by.  A  brief  statement  of  the  question  will  there- 
fore be  given,  that  the  chief  data  for  a  judgment  may  be  in  the 
reader's  possession.  It  naturally  presents  itself,  first,  as  a  ques- 
tion of  topography  ;  and  second,  of  history. 

The  name  of  the  place  where  He  was  crucified  was  Golgotha,  a 
skull  —  KpavLov,  Vul.  calvaria.  "The  i^roper  writing  and  pronuncia- 
tion of  this  word,"  says  Lightfoot,  "  had  been  Golgolta,  but  use  had 
now  brought  it  to  be  uttered  Golgotha."  The  earlier  opinion  was  that 
it  was  so  called,  either  because  of  the  tradition  that  Adam  was  buried 
here,  and  his  skull  found  here;  or  that  it  was  the  common  place 
of  execution ;  but  in  recent  times  the  name  is  generally  ascribed  to 
its  shape,  as  resembling  a  human  skull. 

It  may  be  questioned  whether  the  tradition  as  to  Adam's  being 
buried  here  was  of  Jewish  or  Christian  origin;  it  is,  therefore,  of  no 
value  in  this  discussion.  (Langen,  3G9,  thinks  it  to  have  sprung 
from  the  Christian  doctrine  as  to  the  relation  of  the  second  to  the 
first  Adam.)  That  it  was  the  place  of  execution  was  said  by  Jerome: 
Locum  decollatorum.  (Light.,  iii.  164;  Greswell,  iii.  343;  Ewald,  v. 
484;  so  Stier.)  But  it  is  at  least  doubtful  whether  the  Jews  had  any 
one  place  set  apart  as  a  place  of  public  execution ;  this  was  not  the 
custom  of  the  Orientals.  (Langen,  368;  Riehm,  525.  But  see  Eders- 
heim,  ii.  585.)  As  the  crucifixion  of  the  Lord  was  the  act  of  the 
Romans,  it  is  most  probable  that  their  otficers  selected  the  spot  where 
it  should  take  place,  taking  care  only  that  it  should  be  without  the 
walls,  and  in  some  conspicuous  and  public  place,  that  the  sight  might 

»  Holy  City,  ii.  8. 


Part  VII.]  THE   NAME   GOLGOTHA.  577 

terrify  others.  (Bib.  Lex.,  ii.  506;  Kitto,  Bib.  Cyc,  i.  779.)  But  if 
there  was  a  fixed  place  for  public  executions,  and  the  Lord  was  crucified 
here,  would  a  rich  man,  like  Joseph,  have  had  a  garden  there?  This 
is  very  unlikely.  We  may  rather  suppose  that  the  Romans,  according 
to  their  custom,  took  the  condemned  to  the  nearest  convenient  place 
in  the  suburbs  of  the  city.  That  the  place  of  the  Lord's  crucifixion 
,  was  one  well  known,  appears  from  the  use  of  the  article  (Luke  xxiii. 
33):  "And  when  they  came  unto  the  place  which  is  called  'The 
skull,'  there  they  crucified  Him."  R.  V.  (John  xix.  17:  "Unto  the 
place  called  'The  place  of  a  skull.'  "  That  it  was  a  hill  or  mount 
is  nowhere  said;  Robinson  affirms  that  neither  Eusebius,  nor  Cyril,  nor 
Jerome,  nor  any  of  the  historians  of  the  fourth  or  fifth  centiu-y  so  calls 
it.  The  application  of  this  term  to  the  present  Golgotha  will  be 
noted  later. 

But  if  the  other  derivation  of  Golgotha  be  accepted  that  "  it  was 
so  called  because  its  form  resembled  a  skull "  (T.  G.  Lex. ,  siib  voce), 
then  the  idea  of  elevation  is  conveyed  —  a  skull-shaped  hill.  It  is 
said  by  Maldonutus  that  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  first  presented  this  view  — 
a  forma  monticuli  humano  similis  capiti,  but  gave  it  up  as  not  reconcil- 
able with  the  topography.  This  derivation  is  now  generally  held. 
(Reland,  Bengel,  Bleek,  Langen,  Meyer,  Luthardt,  Godet,  Edersheim; 
Farrar  undecided;  Stier,  against.) 

Since  the  name  gives  us  no  definite  information  as  to  the  site  of 
Golgotha,  we  must  ask  what  site  best  conforms  to  the  narrative.  It 
must  answer  to  the  following  conditions:  (a)  It  must  have  been  with- 
out the  city  walls  (John  xix.  17;  Matt,  xxviii.  11;  Heb.  xiii.  12).  (b) 
It  must  have  been  near-the  city  (John  xix.  20).  (c)  It  must  have  been 
near  a  rock-hewn  sepulchre  (John  xix.  41;  Matt,  xxvii.  60)  which 
was  in  a  garden.  (<^)  It  must  have  been  near  some  frequented  road 
(Matt,  xxvii.  39;  Mark  xv.  29). 

Two  inquiries  arise  here:  1.  How  far  the  traditional  Golgotha 
answers  to  these  conditions.  2.  How  far  any  other  supposed  site 
answers  to  them. 

1.  (a)  The  place  of  crucifixion  was  without  the  city  walls.  The 
site  of  the  church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  is  within  the  present  city 
wall,  but  it  is  admitted  that  the  present  wall  is  not  the  same  as  then  ex- 
isted, and  a  chief  point  in  dispute  is  as  to  the  location  of  that  wall. 
Was  the  site  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  within  or  without  it?  Josephus 
mentions  three  walls.  (War,  v.  4.  2.)  With  the  first  built  by  David 
and  Solomon,  and  embracing  Mount  Zion,  and  with  the  last  built  by 
Agrippa  after  the  Lord's  death,  we  have  no  concern.  The  question 
concerns  only  the  position  of  the  second  wall,  which  was  standing  in 
our  Lord's  day.     To  determine  its  course,  Josephus  gives  us  as  data 


578  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  \  II. 

the  two  termini  —  the  gate  Gennath  and  the  Fortress  Antonia.  He 
states  also  that  the  wall  did  not  run  in  a  straight  line  from  one  of 
these  points  to  the  other,  but  was  curved  and  encircled  the  northern 
part  of  the  city. 

The  fortress  Antonia,  one  terminus,  is  well  known;  but  where 
was  the  gate  Gennath,  the  starting  jwint?  The  name  indicates  that 
it  was  a  gate  leading  to  a  garden  outside  the  first  wall,  or  at  least  was 
near  one.  The  north  line  of  the  first  wall  in  which  was  this  gate,  ran 
in  nearly  a  straight  line  from  the  tower  of  Hippicus  eastward  to  the 
tem2)le  wall,  a  distance,  according  to  Robinson,  of  some  630  yards. 
It  is  generally  agreed  that  Hippicus  is  to  be  identified  with  the 
modern  citadel,  the  castle  of  David  —  El  Kalah  —  near  the  Jaffa  gate. 
(Some  dissent  from  this;  Lewin  says  this  is  not  Hippicus,  but  Phasse- 
lus;  Schwartz  puts  Hippicus  far  to  the  north;  Fergusson  identifies  it 
with  the  present  Kasr  Jalud  —  Goliath's  Castle).  Somewhere  in  this 
first  wall  between  Hippicus  and  the  temple  area  was  the  gate 
Gennath,  of  which  no  sure  traces  are  now  to  be  found,  for  the  gate 
now  so  called  is  said  by  Col.  Wilson  to  be  comparatively  a  modern 
structure.  (B.  E.,  iv.  279.)  By  Robinson,  it  is  put  quite  at  the  west 
end  of  the  wall  near  Hippicus  (so  Conder,  Merrill,  Tobler,  Wilson,  and 
others) ;  by  Schaff'ter  and  Thrup,  quite  to  the  east  near  to  the  temple 
wall;  and  by  others,  at  various  points  intermediate.  (Rob.,  i.  312; 
iii.  212;  Williams,  H.  C,  ii.   14.) 

In  this  great  diversity  of  opinion  the  exact  position  of  the  gate 
Gennath  must  be  left  undecided.  As  to  the  general  position  of  Anto- 
nia, the  other  terminus  of  the  second  wall,  there  is  no  doubt.  It  was 
on  the  north  of  the  temple  area;  and  according  to  Robinson  (iii.  233), 
it  extended  east  and  west  along  its  northern  side;  but  by  most  it  is 
placed  on  the  northwest  corner.  (So  Raumer,  389;  Williams,  H.  C, 
i.  409;  Merrill.)     In  this  discussion  the  matter  is  not  important. 

With  this  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  termini,  we  now  ask  as  to 
the  probable  course  of  the  wall.  As  we  have  seen,  it  was  not  straight, 
but  curved.  Can  we,  from  the  nature  of  the  ground,  its  hills  and 
valleys,  judge  with  some  probability  where  it  must  have  run  in  order 
to  have  been  a  defense?  Some  affirm  this,  but  there  is  great  diversity 
of  judgment  arising  in  part  from  the  changes  which  many  centuries 
have  made  in  the  whole  contour  of  the  ground,  the  cutting  down  of 
the  hills  and  the  filling  up  of  the  valleys;  the  debris  in  this  part  of  the 
city  having  in  many  places  a  thickness  of  from  forty  to  fifty  feet. 
(Conder,  H.  B.,  331.)  Col.  Wilson  says  (B.  E.,  iv.  278):  "One 
of  the  most  striking  features  in  Jerusalem  is  the  vast  accumulation  of 
rubbish;"  and  it  is  from  this  cause  tliat  so  many  reconstructions  of 
the  city  have  been  proposed,  sixteen  at  least  it  is  said.     (See  Baede- 


Part  VII.]         COURSE   OP   THE   SECOND    WALL.  579 

ker,  155,  for  several  of  them.)  Unable  in  this  way  to  come  to  any 
certain  result  as  to  the  course  of  the  second  wall,  we  ask,  Are  there 
any  visible  remains  of  it  by  which  we  can  trace  its  course?  Robinson 
(iii.  190,  206,  and  218)  discovered  in  the  present  wall  at  the  Damas- 
cus gate  some  ancient  remains,  which  he  identifies  with  the  guard 
houses  of  a  gate  of  the  second  wall,  and  the  identification  is  accepted 
by  Williams,  DeSaulcy,  Merrill,  Wilson,  and  others.  In  this  case, 
our  investigations  are  narrowed  down  to  the  course  of  the  wall  from 
the  gate  Gennath  to  the  Damascus  gate.  •  But  later  explorations  have 
made  this  identification  doubtful.  (Recov.  Jer.,  216.)  They  may 
have  belonged  to  the  third  wall,  that  of  Agrippa. 

Similar  remains  have  been  found  in  an  angle  of  the  present  wall 
near  the  Latin  convent  (Rob.,  iii.  219),  which  are  said  by  Merrill  to 
liave  belonged  to  the  second  wall ;  others  question  this.  Are  there 
other  traces  of  the  second  wall?  It  is  said  by  Dr.  Merrill:  "  In  1886 
I  had  the  good  fortune  to  discover  wliat  is  unquestionably  the  second 
wall.  .  .  .  This  was  ten  or  more  feet  below  the  surface  of  the 
ground,  and  twenty  feet  of  it  were  exposed ;  its  direction  was  north- 
west to  southeast.  Had  the  southern  end  been  extended  a  few  yards, 
it  would  have  touched  the  tower  of  David  about  in  the  middle  of  the 
north  side;  near  that  point  must  have  been  the  gate  Gennath."  (Qt. 
St.,  January,  1886;  see  also  articles  in  Qt.  St.,  April  and  July  and 
October  by  Conder,  Schick,  and  Mrs.  Finn.)  Assuming  that  the  re- 
mains of  the  wall  at  the  Damascus  gate  are  those  of  this  second  wall, 
a  line  drawn  in  circle  touching  the  tower  of  Antonia,  the  Damascus 
gate,  and  the  newly  discovered  wall,  would  run  far  to  the  north  and 
west  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  and  exclude  forever  its  claims."  In 
a  later  communication  {Sunday  School  Times,  June  1,  1889),  Dr. 
Merrill  affrms  that  six  points  of  the  second  wall  are  now  known, 
and  that  the  Holy  Sepulchre  must  have  been  within  it.  But  on 
the  other  hand,  some,  taking  the  same  termini,  so  draw  its  course 
that  the  sepulchre  is  without  it.  (So  Schick ;  see  Qt.  St. ,  January, 
1888,  for  plan  of  the  second  wall;  also  that  for  April  of  same  year.) 
In  favor  of  the  present  site,  it  is  said  that  a  gateway  and  part  of  a 
wall  have  been  found  east  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  which  are  remains 
of  the  second  wall.  (Friedlieb,  191;  contra,  Merrill,  S.  S.  T.,  June 
1,  1889.)  As  the  matter  now  stands,  nothing  very  positive  can  be 
said  as  to  the  course  of  the  second  wall,  and  therefore  nothing 
positive  as  to  the  position  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  whether  within  this 
wall  or  without  it;  this,  future  explorations  must  decide. 

(h)  The  second  condition  to  be  met  is  that  Golgotha  should  have 
been  near  the  city  (John  xix.  20).  Some  infer  from  this  passage  that 
the  inscription  was  read  from  the  city,  but  this  is  not   warranted. 


580  THE  LIFE   OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIL 

(For  another  reading,  see  R.  V.  margin :  "  The  place  of  tlie  city 
where  Jesus  was  crucified  was  nigh  at  hand."  Some  press  this  so 
far  as  to  make  Golgotha  within  the  citjr.) 

(f)  The  third  condition  is,  that  very  near  the  place  of  crucifixion 
was  a  garden  in  which  was  a  rock-cut  sepulchre.  That  this  con- 
dition is  fulfilled  in  the  traditional  tomb,  is  affirmed  by  some  and 
denied  by  others.  It  is  affirmed  that  other  ancient  tombs  are  found 
not  far  removed  from  the  traditional  one,  proving  the  fact  that 
an  ancient  Jewish  burial-place  existed  here.  It  is  said  by  Wilson 
(B.  E.,  iv.  284):  "To  the  west  of  the  Rotunda  there  is  a  chamber 
containing  several  receptacles  for  bodies,  similar  to  those  seen  with- 
out the  city."  Willis,  quoting  Schultz  (H.  City,  ii.  194),  speaks 
of  "a  rock -tomb  formed,  long  before  the  church  was  built,  and 
probably  belonging  to  an  old  Jewish  sepulchre  of  an  age  prior  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans."  The  tomb  is  known 
as  the  tomb  of  Joseph  of  Arimathaea  and  of  Nicodemus.  "The  ex- 
istence of  these  sepulchres,"  says  Stanley  (452),  "yjroves  almost  to  a 
certainty,  that  at  some  period  the  site  of  the  present  church  must 
have  been  outside  the  walls  of  the  city;  and  lends  considerable  prob- 
ability to  the  belief  that  the  rock  excavation,  which  perhaps  exists  in 
part  still,  and  certainly  once  existed  entire,  within  the  marble  casing 
of  the  chapel  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  was  at  any  rate  a  really  ancient 
tomb,  and  not,  as  is  often  rashly  asserted,  a  modern  structure  in- 
tended to  imitate  it."  (So  Adler,  Der  Felsendom,  Berlin,  1873.)  New 
tombs  have  been  found  under  the  Coptic  Convent,  of  which  Schick 
gives  a  plan  and  description.  (Qt.  St.,  July,  1887.)  He  says,  that 
these  prove  the  existence  of  rock-hewn  tombs  in  this  vicinity  before 
the  church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  was  built;  and  that  they  also  tes- 
tify to  the  genuineness  of  the  tombs  in  the  Western  Rotunda.  On 
the  other  side,  Robinson  denies  the  antiquity  of  all  these  rock- 
tombs.  This  rock-hewn  tomb  of  Joseph  was  in  a  garden  (Matt, 
xxvii.  60;  Mark  xv.  46;  Luke  xxiii.  53;  John  xix.  41.  As  to  gar- 
dens in  cities  and  tombs  in  gardens,  see  Hamburger,  i.  396.)  That 
there  were  gardens  in  that  part  of  the  city  where  the  Holy  Sepulchre 
now  is,  finds  support  from  the  proximity  of  Herod's  palace,  and  the 
name  of  the  gate  Geunath. 

(r/)  The  last  condition  is,  that  it  was  near  some  frequented  road. 
(Matt,  xxvii.  39;  Mark  xv.  39.)  Such  a  place  the  Romans  were  accus- 
tomed to  choose  for  public  executions.  But  this  does  not  enable  us 
to  determine  in  what  direction  from  the  city  it  ran,  much  less  that  it 
was  a  road  especially  travelled  by  the  feast  pilgrims. 

2.  If  the  traditional  site  be  rejected  as  not  answering  to  these  con- 
ditions, what  site  answering  to  tlu'Ui  has  been  presented?  Certainly  not 


Part  VII.]        SUPPOSED   SITE   OP   GOLGOTHA. 


581 


\  8KULL  HILL 


that  bronght  forward  by  Mr.  Fergusson,  who  asserts  that  the  sepul- 
chre was  in  the  rock  tinder  the  dome  of  the  Mosque  of  Omar,  and  that 
this  building  is  the  identical  Church  of  the  Resurrection  erected  by 
Constantino.  (See  it  as  stated 'by  himself  in  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  i. 
1018.)  It  has  been  accepted  by  very  few  and  need  not  be  consid- 
ered here.  Another  site  was  suggested  by  Dr.  Barclay  on  the 
side  of  Olivet,  on  a  spur  projecting  into  the  valley  of  Kidron  above 
Gethsemane.  Dr.  Thomson  placed  it  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Ki- 
dron north  of  St.  Stephen's  gate;  Bishop  Gobat,  "on  the  hill  just 
outside  the  walls  to  the  northeast  of  Herod's  gate,"  which  Sir  Charles 
Wilson  also  prefers ;  and  still  another  site  is  suggested  at  the  junc- 
tion of  the  valley  of  Hinnom 
with  the  Kedron.  All  these  , 
are  mere  conjectures  resting 
upon  some  local  fitness,  real  or 
supposed. 

The  view  which  has  attract- 
ed most  attention  is  that  Gol- 
gotha is  the  hill  Ij'ing  without 
the  present  wall  a  little  north- 
east of  the  Damascus  gate. 
This  is  probably  owing  to  an 
early  suggestion  of  Robinson 
(i.  407),  that  a  frequented  spot 
without  the  gate  and  nigh  to 
the  city,  "  would  only  be  found 
upon  the  western  or  northern 
side  of  the  city  on  the  road 
leading  towards  Joppa  or  Da- 
mascus." Soon  after,  others 
began  to  speak  of  the  hill  now 
called   by  many  "  Skull  Hill," 

by  others,  Grotto  Hill,  above  the  grotto  of  Jeremiah,  and  near  the 
Damascus  gate,  as  a  possible  Golgotha;  and  at  the  present  time  it 
has  many  advocates;  some  notice  of  it  is  therefore  necessary. 

It  is  thus  described  by  Principal  Dawson  (Modern  Science  in 
Bible  Lands) :  "  Skull  Hill  was  originally  a  part  of  the  Moriah  ridge, 
extending  northward  from  it  as  a  sliort  and  narrow  spur.  It  con- 
tained a  continuation  of  the  fine  white  limestone  which  underlies 
the  Moriah  ridge.  Here  a  quarry  was  opened,  probably  as  early  as 
the  building  of  Solomon's  temple.  The  quarrying  operations  were 
finally  extended  right  through  tlie  hill,  so  as  to  separate  the  Skull 
Hill  entirely  from  the  remainder.     This  excavation  was  carried  from 


582  THE!  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part   VU 

the  city  walls  on  the  one  side  to  the  grotto  of  Jeremiah  on  the  other, 
leaving  only  a  round  knoll  to  represent  the  former  extremity  of  the 
ridge,  and  even  this  undermined  extensively  in  the  grotto.  From 
some  cause  the  quarrying  in  the  hill  vv^as  abandoned,  and  the  rock 
hollowed  under  ground  in  the  great  quarries  under  the  Bezethan 
quarter."  As  to  its  present  appearance,  Condersays:  "The  hill  is 
quite  bare  with  scanty  grass  covering  the  rocky  soil;  not  a  tree  or 
shrub  exists  on  it.  .  .  .  The  hillock  is  rounded  on  all  sides  but 
the  south,  where  the  yellow  cliff  is  jDierced  by  two  small  caves  high 
up  on  the  sides."  Its  height  is  about  40  feet  above  the  surface  of 
the  ground  around  it.  (Qt.  St.,  April,  1883,  p.  69;  also  Qt.  St.,  April 
and  Octpber,  1885. 

What  are  the  claims  of  this  hill  to  be  considered  as  the  place  of 
the  crucifixion?  (a)  Its  resemblance  to  the  shape  of  a  skull.  This  is 
apparent,  at  least  from  some  points  of  view,  and  this  resemblance  is 
heightened  by  two  caves  or  hollows  in  it,  natural  or  artificial,  which 
look  at  a  distance  like  eye-sockets.  But  this  resemblance,  however 
striking,  cannot  have  much  weight,  and  some  part  of  it  may  result 
from  later  excavations.  (5)  It  stands  outside  the  probable  course  of 
the  second  wall,  but  whether  near  it  depends  on  the  course  of  that 
wall.  If  it  ran  north  as  high  as  the  Damascus  gate,  the  hill  is  some 
100  yards  outside  of  it,  but  if  this  wall  did  not  extend  so  far  north, 
the  distance  of  the  hill  from  it  is  proportionately  increased,  (c)  It  is 
near  a  frequented  road.  The  present  road  to  Nablous  and  Damas- 
cus runs  south  of  it,  but  hardly  so  near  as  to  answer  to  the  narrative 
(Matt,  xxvii.  39),  which  implies  that  those  passing  by  were  able  to  see 
or  hear  what  was  done  or  said  at  the  cross.  Merrill  lays  stress  on  the 
fact,  that  remains  of  an  old  Roman  military  road  from  the  fortress 
Antonia  to  Csesarea  ran  a  little  north  of  the  hill,  and  infers  that  the 
place  of  execution  would  be  near  it. 

((?)  That  a  garden  was  near  it,  and  in  it  a  sepulchre.  This  is  the 
most  important  point,  since  the  existence  of  a  sepulchre  is  perma- 
nent, but  the  position  of  a  cross  leaves  no  permanent  traces.  Do  we 
find  ground  to  believe  that  there  was  a  garden  near  this  hill  and  in  it 
a  sepulchre?  (As  to  gardens  north  of  the  city,  see  Joseph.  War,  v. 
2.  2.)  This  is  said  by  Edersheim :  "  Close  by  were  villas  and  gardens." 
Its  entire  summit  is  now  covered  with  Moslem  graves,  but  in  our 
Lord's  day  the  top  of  the  hill,  it  is  claimed,  was  given  up  to  public 
executions.  If  so,  is  it  probable  that  private  gardens  would  have 
been  found  upon  its  slopes,  and  do  we  find  any  remains  of  ancient 
sepulchres?  In  the  western  face  of  this  hill  is  a  large  tomb,  judged 
by  its  remains  to  be  more  Jewish  than  Christian,  and  which  may 
show  that  the  Jews  had  used  it  before  the  Lord's  day  for  burial  pur- 


Fart  VII.]  GROTTO   HILL  AND  GOLGOTHA.  583 

poses.  (Merrill  in  Qt.  St.,  October,  1885.)  In  the  northwest  there  is 
a  Jewish  tomb  with  several  chambers,  and  other  sepulchres  are  found 
west  of  the  hill.  (See  Schick  in  Zeitschrift  des  Pal.  Verein,  9.  74 ;  Con  • 
der  in  Qt.  St.,  1881,  201 ;  April,  1883.  See  also  Qt.  St.,  October,  1879.) 
But  do  any  of  these  sepulchres  date  back  to  the  Lord's  time? 
This  is  said  by  Conder,  who  thinks  that  he  finds  in  one  of  these,  ly- 
ing 770  feet  from  the  hill,  the  Lord's  sepulchre  (Qt.  St.,  April,  1883, 
with  plans).  On  the  other  hand,  Payne  (Bibliotheca  Sac,  Jan.,  1889, 
178)  thinks  that  without  doubt  it  is  the- tomb  of  St.  Stephen,  and  ia 
too  far  removed  from  the  place  of  crucifixion,  and  also  that  it  is  not 
of  the  right  character  or  date.  He  affirms  that  a  rock-hewn  sepul- 
chral chamber  like  that  in  which  the  Lord  was  laid,  is  no  where  to 
be  found  about  this  hill. 

That  there  is  no  tradition  connecting  this  hill  with  the  Lord's 
crucifixion,  all  admit.  That  there  is  a  present  belief  among  the  Jews 
of  Jerusalem  that  this  was  the  place  of  public  execution  —  the  an- 
cient place  of  stoning  (Levit.  xxiv.  14,  Num.  xv.  35) —  is  aifirmed  by 
Conder  and  Chaplin,  and  accepted  by  Edersheim  (ii.  585);  but  Merrill 
admits  that  it  is  of  no  great  antiquity  and  attaches  little  importance 
to  it.  That  the  proto-martyr  St.  Stephen  was  stoned  here,  is  a  tra- 
dition of  the  fifth  century ;  but  if  true,  it  is,  of  course,  no  proof  that 
the  Lord  was  crucified  here,  or  that  this  was  the  common  place  of 
execution.     (As  to  early  notices  of  the  hill,  see  Lewis,  108.) 

One  or  two  points  remain  still  to  be  considered.  If,  as  said  by 
Dawson,  and  generally  held,  the  space  between  Jeremiah's  grotto 
and  the  north  city  wall  was,  in  the  Lord's  day,  a  quarry,  it  is  not 
probable  that  a  part  of  it  would  be  chosen  as  a  place  of  crucifixion. 

And  it  is  certain  that  during  the  many  centuries  since  intervening, 
great  changes  must  have  taken  place  as  to  the  shape  and  appearance  of 
the  hill.  It  is  said  by  Payne  that  the  present  configuration  is  so  recent 
as  to  be  wholly  unknown  to  the  early  Christians  and  church  historians, 
and  even  to  the  whole  line  of  pilgrims  to  the  holy  places  down  to 
mediaeval  times.  Another  and  more  important  objection  to  the  claims 
of  this  Hill  is,  that  no  one  until  a  very  recent  date  has  spoken  of  it  as 
the  Golgotha.  Had  it  been  the  place  of  the  Lord's  crucifixion  and 
burial,  the  memory  of  it  must  have  been  preserved  in  tradition,  since 
it  has  remained  unaffected  by  all  the  devastations  of  the  city  itself. 
Its  conspicuous  ^wsition,  lying  without  the  wall,  must  have  made  it 
both  known  and  accessible  to  all  pilgrims ;  and  Constantine  could 
not  have  chosen  a  more  obscure  site  without  some  voice  being  heard 
against  it. 

We  conclude,  then,   that  there  is  no  sufiicient  proof   that  SkulJ 


684  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [I'art  VII 

or  Grotto  Hill  was  the  phace  of  the  Lord's  crucifixion.  (This  view, 
perhaps,  suggested  by  Robinson,  1841,  stated  by  Thenius,  1842, 
defended  by  Fisher  Howe,  "  The  true  site  of  Calvary,"  New  York, 
1-^71,  and  advocated  by  Conder,  Merrill,  General  Gordon,  Dawson, 
and  accepted  by  Edersheim,  "To  me  this  seems  the  most  sacred 
and  precious  locality  in  Jerusalem,"  needs  much  additional  proof  to 
give  it  probability.  See  Lewis,  The  Holy  Places,  108  ff.  for  a  fair 
statement  of  the  matter.) 

But  if  there  is  no  sufScient  evidence  that  this  hill  was  Golgotha, 
still  this  does  not  show  that  the  traditional  site  is  the  true  one.  We 
therefore  ask,  "What  do  history  and  tradition  tell  us  of  the  places  of  the 
crucifixion  and  burial?  For  convenience'  sake,  let  us  divide  the  time 
embraced  in  o\ir  inquiry  into  three  periods :  From  the  Lord's  death 
to  the  destruction  of  the  city  by  Titus,  70  A.  D. ;  from  this  destruc- 
tion to  its  overthrow  by  Hadrian,  136  A.  D. ;  from  this  overthrow  to 
the  pilgrimage  of  Helena,  320  A.  D. 

1.  80-70  A.  D.  It  is  certain  that  the  places  of  crucifixion  and 
burial  were  known,  not  only  to  the  disciples,  but  to  the  priests  and 
rulers  and  to  many  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city.  It  is  in  the  high- 
est degree  improbable  that  they  could  have  been  forgotten  by  any 
who  were  witnesses  of  the  Lord's  death,  or  knew  of  His  resurrection. 
As  the  apostles,  according  to  a  commonly  received  tradition,  contin- 
ued for  a  number  of  years  after  this  at  Jerusalem,  there  could  be  no 
doubt  that  each  site  was  accurately  known  to  them  and  their  follow- 
ers. Besides,  the  Evangelists,  writing  from  twenty  to  fifty  years  after 
His  death,  mention  distinctly  Golgotha  and  the  garden.  Down  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus,  A.  D.  70,  there  can  be  no 
question  that  these  places  were  well  known.  During  the  siege  of  the 
city,  most  or  all  of  the  Jewish  Christians  retired  to  Pella,  but  they 
seem  soon  to  have  returned.  Was  the  city  so  destroyed  that  the  former 
site  of  the  sepulchre  could  not  be  recognized?  This  is  not  claimed 
by  any  one.  Robinson  (i.  366)  speaks  of  it  as  "  a  destruction  terrible, 
but  not  total."  We  conclude,  then,  that  the  site  was  known  to  the 
Jewish  Christians  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus. 

2.  70-136  A.  D.  What  is  known  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  during 
this  period?  It  is  unquestioned  that  there  was  during  it  a  Christian 
church,  standing,  as  some  say,  on  the  site  of  the  Coenaculum  —  the 
"upper  room"  of  the  last  supper;  and  it  is  most  improbable,  there- 
fore, that  knowledge  of  the  i)laces  of  the  crucifixion  and  the  tomb 
should  have  been  lost.  Whether  pilgrimages  began  before  the  end 
of  this  period,  may  be  questioned ;  and  whether  up  to  the  destruc- 
tion by  Hadrian  the  sepulchre  had  been  marked  by  any  monument, 


Fart  VII.]  THE   HOLY   SEPULCHRE.  685 

does  not  appear.     This  is  possible,    thougli  we  cannot  believe,  as 
assumed  by  Chateaubriand,   that  a  church  was  erected  upon  it. 

3.  136-326  A.  D.  That  the  city  was  not  wholly  destroyed  by 
Hadrian,  and  that  the  work  of  rebuilding  began  immediately  after 
the  close  of  the  war,  is  historically  proved.  It  became  in  many  re- 
spects a  new  city,  taking  the  name  of  Aelia  Capitolina,  by  which  it 
was  generally  known  for  many  years.  It  was  in  this  period  that  the 
Jewish  Christian  Church  at  Jerusalem  first  elected  a  Gentile  bishop; 
and  Eusebius  gives  a  list  of  his  successors,  twenty-three  in  number, 
down  to  the  time  of  Constantine.  Although  the  general  character  of 
the  new  city  was  heathen  through  the  bringing  in  of  new  citizens, 
yet  this  must  have  served  to  intensify  the  regard  of  the  Christians 
for  their  sacred  places.  To  this  we  must  add  the  interest  kej^t  alive 
by  the  visits  of  pilgrims,  for  it  is  well  established,  that  pilgrimages 
to  the  holy  sites  were  not  unfrequent  in  the  second  century,  and  they 
were  still  more  frequent  in  the  next. 

But  however  strong  the  probability  that  the  sepulchre  was  known, 
yet  in  point  of  fact,  for  this  period  of  about  190  years,  we  hear  noth- 
ing of  it  except  what  we  learn  from  a  statement  of  Eusebius  (Vita 
Const.,  iii.  26),  that  impious  men  had  erected  over  it  a  temple  to  the 
goddess  Venus,  first  covering  it  with  earth  to  conceal  it  and  to  get  a 
better  foundation.  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  temple  was  built  by 
Hadrian,  or  by  some  enemies  at  a  later  period.  Jerome  (395  A.  D.) 
speaks  of  a  statue  of  Venus  which  stood  upon  the  spot,  and  ascribes  it 
to  Hadrian.  This  temple  to  Venus,  taken  in  connection  with  a  temple 
to  Jupiter  built  by  Hadrian  upon  the  temple  area,  and  his  placing  there 
an  equestrian  statue  of  himself,  seems  clearly  to  show  his  jiurpose  to 
dishonor  both  Jew's  and  Christians  in  their  representative  sacred 
places  —  the  Temple  Mount  and  the  Hill  of  Golgotha.  But  if  a  tem- 
ple was  built  over  the  sepulchre,  and  a  statue  of  Venus  placed  ; 
where  the  cross  stood,  this  would  indeed  serve  to  hinder  the  Chris- 
tians of  the  city  from  gathering  there,  and  pilgrims  from  visiting 
there,  but  it  would  not  give  over  to  forgetfulness  the  holy  places; 
rather  it  would  tend  to  keep  them  in  memory. 

If  the  early  Christians  knew  the  places  of  the  crucifixion  and  the 
resurrection,  can  we  believe  that  they  would  soon  forget  them?  It  is 
obvious  that  no  other  places  could  be  so  deeply  interesting  to  them, 
and  none,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  would  be  so  generally  known 
and  so  firmly  impressed  on  the  memory.  Few  perhaps,  knew  of  the 
birthplace  of  the  Lord,  for  His  connection  with  Bethlehem  was  tran- 
sient, and  it  was  many  years  before  the  attention  of  the  disci))les  in 
general  was  turned  to  it.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  place  of  His 
ascension ;  only  the  eleven  were  with  Him,  and  there  was  nothing 
25* 


586  THE   LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VII. 

monumental  to  mark  the  exact  spot  of  His  ascent;  but  all  Jerusalem 
and  multitudes  from  Galilee  knew  where  were  the  cross  and  se])ul- 
chre.  And  besides  the  great  publicity  of  His  death  and  burial  and 
resurrection,  the  supernatural  character  of  the  events  attending  them 
made  it  impossible  that  they  could  be  easily  forgotten.  The  cross 
was  soon  taken  down,  but  the  sepulchre  remained  its  own  witness. 
The  fact  of  His  resurrection  being  made  the  central  truth  in  the  Apos- 
tolic preaching  (Acts  iv.  2),  every  circumstance  connected  with  it  was 
thus  kept  before  the  public  mind.  It  must  be  admitted  that  no 
such  regard  was  at  lirst  paid  to  the  sacred  places  as  in  later  times; 
the  hope  of  the  Lord's  speedy  return  in  glory  making  the  disciples 
comparatively  indifferent  to  the  local  associations  of  His  earthly  life. 
Their  faces  were  turned  to  the  future  rather  than  to  the  past;  and  to 
this  we  must  ascribe  the  fact  that  the  site  of  the  resurrection  was  for 
many  years,  so  far  as  we  know,  distinguished  by  no  monument.  But 
this  is  very  far  from  entire  forgetfulness  of  the  place  itself. 

But  does  not  the  language  of  Eusebius  (Life  of  Constantine,  iii. 
25,  26)  imply,  that  Constantine  learned  the  site  of  the  sepulchre  by 
immediate  revelation  from  God,  and  that,  therefore,  it  could  not 
have  been  previously  known? 

We  may  make  two  suppositions  : — 1.  That  through  the  several 
overthrows  of  the  city  and  the  devastations  attending  them,  the 
tomb  was  so  far  obliterated  that  all  memory  of  it  was  lost;  and  that 
when  the  temple  of  Venus  was  built,  whether  in  Hadrian's  time  or 
after,  it  was  built  without  any  knowledge  of,  or  reference  to,  the 
tomb.  In  this  case,  its  discovery  by  Constantine  may  well  have  been 
ascribed  by  Eusebius  to  a  supernatural  revelation. 

2.  That  the  tomb,  perhaps  hidden  under  the  earth,  survived 
these  devastations,  and  that  the  site  of  it  was  known  when  the  tem- 
ple of  Venus  was  built,  and  that  this  temple  was  placed  over  it  with 
the  intent  to  hide  it  from  all  eyes,  and  cause  it  to  be  forgotten.  But 
this  would  certainly  help  to  keep  it  in  memory;  and  we  may  therefore 
believe  that  Constantine  w^as  not  ignorant  of  its  site,  and  needed  no 
special  divine  guidance  when  he  ordered  the  temple  to  be  destroyed. 

Taking  all  the  data  into  account,  it  seems  most  reasonable  to 
accept  the  last  supposition.  Doubtless,  the  intent  of  those  who  built 
the  temple  of  Venus  on  that  spot,  was  to  show  their  aversion  to  the 
Christian  faith ;  and  their  expectation  was  that  the  new  sect,  built 
upon  the  great  delusion  or  imposture  of  the  resurrection  of  its 
founder,  would  soon  cease  to  exist;  and  that  to  hide  the  sepulchre 
from  all  eyes  was  a  means  to  that  end.  But  for  the  continued  exist- 
ence of  the  little  church  at  Jerusalem,  and  its  growing  faith  in  the 
Kisen  One,  this  forgetfulness  would  doubtless  have  been  the  result. 


Part  VIL.]     CONSTANTINE  AND  THE  HOLY  SEPULCHRE.      587 

On  the  contrary,  the  sight  of  tlie  heathen  temple  served,  in  fact,  to 
]ireserve  alive  the  remembrance  of  the  place  of  His  resurrection. 
This  best  explains  the  action  of  Constantine,  who,  if  he  had  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  real  site,  and  now  made  a  selection  from  among  the 
possible  places,  would  not  have  chosen  one  so  central,  and  so  far 
within  the  then  existing  western  wall.  Some  good  reason  must  have 
existed  for  connecting  it  locally  with  the  temple  of  Venus.  The 
divine  impulse  which  Eusebius  ascribes  to  him,  was  not  the  knowl- 
edge where  the  sepulchre  was  to  be  found,  but  the  desire  to  build 
there  a  church  in  honor  of  the  Lord.  Prof.  Lewis  (100)  thinks  that 
Constantine  "built  on  a  site  which  he  fully  believed  to  be  that  of 
our  Lord's  burial,  and  that  he  had  knowledge  to  guide  him  as  to  its 
correctness."  It  is  said  by  Lewin  :  "In  the  days  of  Constantine  not 
the  least  doubt  was  entertained  where  the  sepulchre  was  situated; 
but  the  only  hesitation  was,  whether,  by  removing  the  temple,  the 
sepulchre  itself  could  be  recovered." 

It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  "  the  Invention  of  the  cross,"  or  its 
discovery  by  the  Empress  Helena  (336  A.  D.),  stands  in  no  historical 
relation  to  the  discovery  of  the  site  of  the  sepulchre.'  Besides  the 
intrinsic  objections,  the  silence  of  Eusebius  in  regard  to  the  inven- 
tion seems  conclusive  against  it,  since  he  was  well  disposed  to  be- 
lieve such  an  account.  (Giesseler,  ii.  37,  note.)  We  can  trace  the  con- 
stantly growing  legendary  character  of  the  narrative :  at  first  the  Lord's 
cross  was  distinguished  from  those  of  tlie  two  malefactors  by  the 
title  Pilate  had  attached  to  it;  then  through  the  ordeal  of  healing  a 
sick  person;  then  through  the  greater  miracle  of  recalling  a  dead 
jierson  to  life.  (See  Zoeckler,  Tfie  Cross  of  Christ,  146.)  That  Helena 
may  have  found  some  pieces  of  timber  and  iron  belonging  to  some 
former  structure,  and  which  she  believed  to  be  part  of  the  cross,  is  sug- 
gested by  Prof.  Willis  (128),  and  is  very  probable. 

The  late  explorations  show  that  the  traditional  Golgotha  was  ele- 
vated above  the  ground  around  it;  that  it  was  not  a  high  hill  is 
shown  by  the  way  in  which  Epiphanius  speaks  of  it,  comparing  it 
disparagingly  with  the  hill  of  Zion  and  the  Mount  of  Olives  (Qt.  St., 
April,  1880).  Robinson  ascribes  the  origin  of  the  term  "mount"  to 
the  fact  that  the  rock  of  Golgotha  was  left  in  the  midst  of  the  large 
open  court,  formerly  the  garden.  According  to  Willis,  the  rock  of 
Calvary  was  part  of  a  little  swell  of  the  ground  forming  a  somewhat 
abrupt  brow  on  the  west  and  south  sides.  "  This  would  afford  a 
convenient  spot  for  the  place  of  public  execution.     For  the  south- 


'  See  Winer,  i.  437,  note  6.    Isaac  Taylor  (Ancient  Christianity,  ii.   377)  argues 
more  forcibly  than  fairly  that  the  whole  was  a  stiijiendous  fraud. 


5gb  THE   LJFB   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIl 

western  brow  of  the  rock  has  just  sufficient  elevation  to  raise  the 
wretched  sufferers  above  the  gazing  crowd  that  would  naturally  ar- 
range itself  below  and  upon  the  sloping  ridge  opposite." '  Recent  ex- 
plorations show  a  rising  of  the  rock  as  we  go  north  to  the  holy  sepul- 
chre. "  From  these  and  other  neighboring  observations  it  is  clear 
that  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  stands  on  a  hilltop,  and  that 
the  ground  falls  rapidly  south  of  it,"  and  there  is  a  sharp  descent  of 
some  forty  feet  to  the  north  (Qt.  St.,  April,  1880,  page  79.) 

In  concluding  this  brief  statement,  it  may  be  added  that,  as  the 
topographical  argument  now  stands,  it  is  indecisive.  Further  exca- 
vations and  researches  may,  however,  wholly  change  the  aspect  of 
the  question.  The  historical  argument  in  its  favor  has  not  yet  been 
set  aside.  Modern  opinions  are  about  equally  divided.  While  most 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  and  Greek  writers  defend  its  genuineness, 
some  deny  it;  and  on  the  other  hand,  many  Protestants  defend  it.* 


1  See  Furrer  in  Bib.  Lex.,  mib  voce. 

2  Among  those  not  already  cited  who  deny  it,  may  be  mentioned:  Wilson,  Barclay, 
Bonar,  Stewart,  Arnold,  Meyer,  Ewald,  Edersheim.  Among  those  who  defend  it:  Tisch- 
endorf,  Olin,  Prime,  Lange,  Alford,  Priedlieb,  Lewin,  Caspari,  Langen,  Furrer.  Among 
those  who  are  undecided:  Hitter,  Raumer,  Winer,  Bartlett,  Stanley,  Ellicott. 


PART  VIII. 

FROM  THE  RESURRECTION  TO  THE  ASCENSION  ;  OR  FROM  SUN- 
DAY, 9th  APRIL  (17th  Nisan),  TO  THURSDAY,  MAY  18th,  783. 
A.  D.  30. 

THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  LORD. 
Before  entering  upon  the  details  of  the  narratives  of  the 
resurrection,  it  will  be  well  to  ask  from  what  point  of  view  are 
these  narratives  to  be  regarded.  Were  they  intended  to  be  to  their 
readers  proofs  of  the  resurrection  ?  This  is  often  said,  and  in  a 
certain  sense  is  true.  But  the  Evangelists  wrote  for  believers, 
that,  as  said  by  Luke,  they  might  "  know  the  certainty  concern- 
ing the  things  wherein  they  were  instructed,"  or,  as  in  the  mar- 
gin, ''were  taught  by  word  of  mouth  "  (R.  V.).  The  fact  of  the 
resurrection  was  one  of  those  "most  surely  believed  "  ;  one  of 
the  first  truths  taught  in  the  churches  (1  Cor.  xv.  3).  On  whose 
testimony  did  this  belief  rest  ?  Primarily,  on  that  of  the  apostles 
whom  God  had  called  to  be  official  witnesses  (Acts  1.  22;  x.  41;) 
secondarily,  on  that  of  all  who  had  seen  Him  after  He  rose  from 
the  dead  (Acts  xiii.  31). 

Writing,  after  so  many  years,  of  this  great  and  then  every- 
where received  fact,  which  had  its  own  special  witnesses,  and 
had  become  an  essential  article  of  Christian  faith,  the  Evangelists 
did  not  take  upon  themselves  the  work  of  proving  it  to  their 
readers  by  cumulative  testimony;  for,  if  this  had  been  their  pur- 
pose, they  would  carefully  have  cited  all  the  eye-witnesses  of 
whom  they  had  any  knowledge.  But  evidently  they  do  not  do 
this.  Each  of  them  passes  by  in  silence  some  of  the  strongest 
proofs;  not  from  ignorance,  which  in  the  cases  of  Matthew  and 
John  was  impossible,  and  very  improbable  in  the  cases  of  Mark 
and  Luke.  Their  object,  was  quite  another;  and  to  show  this, 
we  must  note  some  points  that  have  often  been  overlooked. 

(a)  The  distinction  between  the  act  of  resurrection  and  the 

(589). 


590  THE   LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIIl. 

subsequent  manifestations  of  the  Risen  One.  The  resurrection 
itself  no  eye  beheld  ;  His  disciples  knew  it  only  as  a  fact  accom- 
plished. How  could  it  be  proved  ?  Tlie  proof  of  the  empty 
tomb,  the  grave  clothes  and  the  napkin,  the  testimony  of  the 
angels  —  all  this  was  not  wholly  convincing,  and  the  disciples 
continued  to  doubt.  He  Himself  must  be  seen  alive;  this  alone 
was  a  testimony  not  to  be  doubted.  It  is  the  death  of  a  man 
that  must  be  proved;  of  his  birth  his  existence  is  the  conclusive 
and  continuous  proof.  So  was  it  with  the  Lord.  His  resurrec- 
tion was  His  second  birth,  the  beginning  of  a  new  and  higher 
and  permanent  form  of  life. 

(b)  The  possibility  of  ever  new  manifestations.  As  the  Risen 
One  He  could  at  any  time  manifest  Himself  to  men,  either  in 
person  to  their  senses,  or  through  the  works  done  by  men  in  His 
name  and  by  His  power.  As  a  living  man  need  not  be  ever 
referring  to  baptismal  registers  to  prove  the  fact  of  his  birth,  but 
is  his  own  witness,  so  the  living  Lord  was  not  dependent  upon 
the  Evangelic  records  to  prove  that  He  is  risen;  if  they  had 
never  been  written,  the  fact  of  His  resurrection  remained  the 
same,  and  consequently  the  same  permanent  power  of  proof. 
As  this  testimony  in  its  very  nature  could  be  repeated  at  His 
pleasure,  it  could  not,  therefore,  be  limited  by  the  Evangelists 
to  certain  given  times  and  places.  It  could  not  be  summed  up 
as  completed  and  incapable  of  addition. 

But,  when  we  speak  of  the  Lord  as  risen,  we  enter  into  a  new 
region;  we  meet  the  phenomena  of  resurrection  life,  whose 
laws  are  wholly  unknown  to  us.  So  far  as  we  know,  none  could 
see  Him  in  this  new  condition  of  being  but  those  to  whom  He 
was  pleased  to  manifest  Himself.  The  risen  Lazarus  could  not 
hide  himself  from  the  senses  of  men,  not  so  tlie  risen  Lord. 
The  amount  of  sensible  evidence  to  His  resurrection  through 
His  visible  presence  or  the  touching  of  His  body,  was,  there- 
fore, wholly  in  His  own  power. 

(c)  The  object  of  these  manifestations.  The  Lord's  first  step 
was  to  convince  His  disciples  that  He  was,  indeed,  risen  —  a 
true  man,  not  a 'phantasm,  or  ghost, —  that  through  resurrection 
He  had  become  "the  beginning  of  the  new  creation,"  '-the 
heavenly  man."     In  Him  the  disciples  should  see  the  noblest 


Part  VIII.]     PURPOSE   OF   THE   LORD'S  APPEARANCES.     oOl 

type  of  humanity  —  humanity  no  longer  under  the  law  of  sin  and 
death,  but  immortal,  incorruptible,  and  having  all  fullness  of 
life.  Not  tiL  the  apostles  came  to  look  upon  Him  as  in  a  condi- 
tion of  being  in  which  He  was  to  abide,  in  perfected  and  immor- 
tal manhood,  could  they  shake  off  the  fear  that  ever  marks  all 
intercourse  with  the  disembodied,  and  attain  to  that  calmness 
and  repose  of  spirit  which  would  enable  them  to  receive  Plis  in- 
structions as  to  their  future  work. 

[d)  The  continuity  and  progressive  nature  of  the  Lord's  re- 
demption work.  As  He  Himself  was  the  same  Person  before 
and  after  His  resurrection,  though  under  differing  conditions  of 
humanity,  so  His  work  was  the  same  though  in  differing  stages. 
And  as  the  apostles  had  been  His  helpers  in  the  first  stage,  so 
should  they  be  also  in  the  second.  Their  old  relation  to  Him  as 
His  apostles  was  not  changed,  and  yet  it  must  be  renewed,  and 
they  be  instructed  and  endowed  by  Him  for  the  new  form  of 
their  labors.  Thus  it  was  necessary,  first  of  all,  that  the  Lord 
convince  the  apostles  of  the  reality  and  of  the  nature  of  His 
resurrection,  and  thus  enable  Him  to  establish  the  new  relations 
between  them  and  Himself  as  the  Risen  One,  —  relations  which 
were  to  continue  during  the  whole  time  of  His  absence  in  heaven. 
He  must  first  bring  them  to  such  measure  of  faith  in  Him  as 
the  Living  One,  that  He  could  proceed  to  teach  them  respecting 
His  future  work  by  them  after  His  departure.  When  this  was 
done.  He  could  give  the  apostles  their  commission  to  be  His  wit- 
nesses to  the  world,  and  then  ascend  to  God,  and  send  down 
upon  them  His  Spirit.  The  period  of  the  forty  days  was,  there- 
fore, filled  with  sensible  manifestations  of  the  Lord,  not  merely 
as  proofs  that  He  was  risen,  but  also  that  they  might  know  Him 
in  the  new  an(f  heavenly  sphere  of  His  activity,  and  have  faith 
in  Him  as  personally  teaching  and  guiding  them  after  He  as- 
cended out  of  their  sight. 

Turning  now  to  the  narratives  of  the  resurrection,  we  notice 
in  them  two  chief  elements.  1.  The  attempts  of  the  Lord  to 
convince  the  apostles  that  He  had  risen  and  had  entered  into  a 
new  and  higher  condition  of  manhood.  2.  His  teachings  and 
directions  given  them  with  reference  to  their  future  work,  when 
they  were  so  convinced. 


592  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD,  [Part  VIIL 

Before  His  death  He  had  directed  them  to  go  to  Galilee,  and 
there  they  should  see  Him;  but  it  is  plain  that  they  had  never 
understood  what  He  had  said  to  them  of  His  resurrection,  and 
therefore  they  did  not  leave  the  city  after  His  burial.  They  saw 
others  perform  the  last  rites  of  love  ;  loving  women  anointed 
His  body  as  others  did  their  dead,  and  left  it  at  rest  in  the  sep- 
ulchre to  wait  for  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day.  The  apostles 
continuing  in  Jerusalem,  it  was  therefore  necessary,  first  of  all,  to 
prove  to  them  there  that  He  was  risen.  They  saw  that  the  stone 
was  rolled  away,  but  this  human  hands  might  have  done  ;  they 
saw  that  His  body  was  not  in  the  sepulchre,  but  His  enemies 
might  have  taken  it  away;  the  folded  grave  clothes  gave  no 
certainty.  He  gives  them  through  the  women  the  testimony  of 
angels,  but  even  this  does  not  remove  doubt;  He  must  manifest 
Himself  again  and  again  till  faith  is  assured  ;  this  He  does  now 
to  one,  now  to  another.  Four  or  five  times  He  appears  on  the 
day  of  His  resurrection,  the  last  time  to  the  Eleven,  and  gives 
them  the  strongest  sensible  proofs  pf  the  reality  of  His  bodily 
presence.  Still,  there  is  one  apostle  unbelieving,  and  therefore 
the  Eleven  cannot  yet  go  to  Galilee  ;  he  must  be  convinced,  and 
therefore  a  week  later  the  Lord  appears  again  to  them,  and  the 
doubting  Thomas  believes.  Now,  all  can  return  to  Galilee,  and 
there  He  manifests  Himself  to  them,  and  to  the  great  body  of 
His  disciples,  all  doubtless  meeting  Him  according  to  His  special 
direction. 

When  the  apostles  were  thus  not  merely  convinced  of  the  fact 
of  His  resurrection,  but  had  learned  in  some  degree  its  signifi- 
cance, and  been  brought  into  such  knowledge  of  Him  as  the 
Eisen  One  that  He  could  teach  them  respecting  their  future 
work,  they  could  receive  their  commission  to  act 'as  His  apostles 
in  making  Him  known  to  the  world,  as  One  who  was  dead  but 
now  alive  again.  Recognizing  His  new  relations  to  them,  they 
were  prepared  to  fulfill  their  new  duties. 

Thus  we  see  that  to  prove  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  by  cit- 
ing all  possible  witnesses,  was  by  no  means  the  chief  end  of  the 
Evangelists.  His  resurrection  was  the  beginning  of  a  new  and 
higher  stage  of  the  Lord's  redemptive  work,  and  it  was  essential 
that  His  disciples,  and  especially  His  apostles,  should  be  convinced 


Part  VIII.J       THE   COMMAND   TO   GO   TO    GALILEE.  593 

of  this  by  His  personal  manifestations  to  them,  and  thus  be  pre- 
pared to  be  His  witnesses  (Acts  x.  41;  xiii.  31),  whose  testimony 
the  world  should  believe.  But  the  object  of  the  Evangelists  was 
to  show,  each  from  his  own  point  of  view,  how  the  Lord  first 
by  repeated  revelations  of  Himself  brought  the  apostles  to  such 
faith  in  Him  as  Risen,  that  He  could  instruct  them  during  the 
forty  days  of  His  stay  on  earth,  and  carry  on  His  new  work  by 
them  after  His  departure. 

We  are  not,  tlien,  to  expect  in  the  Evangelists  any  full  and 
orderly  statement  of  the  manifestations  of  the  Risen  One,  as 
proofs  of  His  resurrection.  No  one  of  them  designs  to  give 
anything  like  a  complete  summary  of  the  evidence  to  establish 
it.  Of  course,  every  appearance  mentioned  is  a  proof  ;  every 
one  who  saw  Him  became  a  witness.  But  the  purpose  of  their 
narratives  is  not  only  to  show  the  fact  of  His  resurrection,  but 
also  what  means  He  employed  to  assure  them  that  He  had  risen  in 
true  though  glorified  manhood,  the  gradual  growth  of  their  faith, 
and  the  nature  of  the  work  He  commissioned  His  Church  to  do. 

In  our  examination  of  the  Evangelic  narratives,  we  must  bear 
m  mind  that  the  purpose  of  God  did  not  include  a  manifestation 
of  the  Lord  after  He  rose  from  the  dead  to  the  world  at  large, 
or  to  His  own  covenant  people  as  such,  but  to  those  only  who  had 
believed  on  Him.  And  among  these  the  apostles  were  to  be  His 
special  witnesses,  and  therefore,  to  them  would  He  give  the 
strongest  proofs  (Acts  i.  22;  x.  41).  Nor  was  it  His  purpose 
to  appear  to  them  in  Jerusalem,  or  even  in  Judrea,  but  in  Galilee, 
whence  most  of  His  disciples  came.  This  last  point  claims  our 
attention. 

We  shall  fail  to  understand  the  accounts  of  the  resurrection 
if  we  do  not  give  due  place  to  the  Lord's  words  spoken  after  the 
paschal  supper.  It  is  said  by  Matthew  (xxvi.  30-32):  "They 
went  out  into  the  Mount  of  Olives.  Then  saith  Jesus  unto  them, 
All  ye  shall  be  offended  because  of  me  this  night,  for  it  is  writ- 
ten, I  will  smite  the  Shepherd,  and  the  sheep  of  the  flock  shall 
Ije  scattered  abroad.  But  after  I  am  risen  again,  I  will  go  before 
you  into  Galilee."  (So  in  almost  tlie  same  words  in  Mark  xiv. 
26-28;  but  they  are  not  given  in  Luke  or  John.)  It  is  evi- 
dent that  the  Lord  here  directs  the  apostles,   who  alone  were 


504  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIII. 

then  with  Him,  to  go  to  Galilee,  promising  to  meet  them 
there  (In  the  angelic  message,  Matt,  xxvii.  7:  "There  shall  ye 
see  Him";  in  His  own  message,  verse  10:  "  There  shall  they  see 
Me  ").  Had  they  had  faith  in  His  words,  the  apostles,  beholding 
the  Shepherd  smitten,  would  have  left  Jerusalem  after  His 
resurrection  and  returned  to  Galilee,  and  there  have  awaited  His 
appearance.  But  their  faith  failed  them.  They  saw  Him  dead 
and  buried,  nothing  remained  but  to  disperse  and  go  to  their  dis- 
tant homes,  their  work  being  ended.  The  risen  Lord  finds  all 
the  disciples  lingering  around  the  sepulchre,  some  bringing  spices 
to  anoint  His  body ;  and  He  has  pity  on  them,  and  especially  on 
the  women  who  have  given  Him  such  proofs  of  their  love.  By 
them  will  He  send  messages  to  His  apostles,  who  did  not  come  to 
the  sepulchre,  and  seemed  to  have  lost  all  faith;  He  will  remind 
them  of  His  final  direction  to  them  to  go  to  Galilee,  if  in  this 
way  He  can  re-awaken  their  faith.  To  this  end.  He  commis- 
sions certain  angels  to  speak  to  the  women,  and  lest  the 
angelic  messages  may  terrify  and  bewilder  them,  He  will  even 
Himself  appear  to  them  and  renew  His  direction. 

But  all  this  was  in  vain.  The  testimony  of  the  women  was 
not  believed.  It  is  said  by  Luke  (xxiv.  11):  "Their  words 
seemed  to  them  as  idle  tales,  and  they  believed  them  not." 
(That  John  believed  at  his  visit  to  the  sepulchre,  xx.  8,  that 
He  had  risen,  is  almost  certain  ;  but  if  so,  he  was  but  one  of  the 
apostles.)  Jesus  appears  to  two  of  the  disciples  going  to  Emmaus, 
that  they  may  testify  of  Him  unto  the  Eleven  ;  and  at  last  He 
appears  to  Peter;  and  then  to  the  assembled  apostles,  and  to 
others  with  them.  But  even  this  personal  appearance  does  not 
convince  them  all,  and  lead  them  to  do  as  He  had  directed  them, 
and  go  into  Galilee.  They  linger  another  week  in  Jerusalem, 
perhaps  visiting  often  the  garden,  hoping  again  to  meet  Him 
there  ;  and  it  was  not  till  His  second  appearance  to  the  Eleven, 
that  they  were  willing  to  leave  the  city  and  go  to  Galilee. 

Thus  we  see  that  a  distinction  is  to  be  taken  between  the 
Judgean  and  GalilaBan  appearances  after  His  resurrection.  It 
was  not  in  Judaea,  not  in  the  Holy  City  where  He  was  crucified, 
that  He  would  manifest  Himself  as  the  Risen  One  ;  His  appear- 
ances there  were   simply  to    convince   the  disciples,   especially 


Part  VIII.]   TWOFOLD  PURPOSE  OF  THE  APPEARANCES.    595 

the  apostles,  of   the    reality  of    His    resurrection,  and    prepare 
them  for  His  further  communications  to  them.     In  JerusalenK 
He  must  die,  from  the  Mount  of  Olives  He  must  ascend,  but  \ 
in  Galilee  He  would  gather  around  Him  those  who  had  there  7 
seen  His  work,  and  heard  His  words,  and  believed. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  Evangelists  do  not  avowedly  dis- 
criminate these  two  elements  —  the  first  appearances  of  the  Lord^ 
whose  object  was  to  show  the  apostles  that  He  had  risen,  and 
the  later,  which  were  to  give  them  instruction  and  guidance  for 
the  future  —  yet  they  do  this  in  fact  (Acts  i.  3).  Thus  Matthew 
mentions  the  appearance  of  the  angels  to  the  women  in  Jerusa- 
lem, and  afterward  the  appearance  of  the  Lord  to  them;  all  this 
was  to  assure  them  that  He  was  risen ;  His  later  appearance  to 
the  Eleven  in  the  mountain  in  Galilee  was  to  give  them  their 
apostolic  commission.  Mark  mentions  the  appearance  of  the 
angels  to  the  women,  and  the  message  given  them  (xvi.  1-8); 
and  in  the  Appendix  (verses  9-18)  three  appearances  of  the 
Lord  are  mentioned  —  one  to  Mary  Magdalene,  one  to  the  two 
disciples,  and  one  to  the  Eleven  at  meat,  all  in  Jerusalem.  The 
first  two  appearances  did  not  effect  belief,  and  therefore  when 
He  appeared  to  the  Eleven,  He  upbraided  them  because  they 
believed  not  them  which  had  seen  Him  after  He  was  risen. 

John  mentions  the  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene,  and  after- 
wards two  appearances  to  the  Eleven  in  Jerusalem.  The  object 
in  all  these  was  plainly  to  beget  faith  in  Him  as  preparatory  to  His 
further  directions  and  teaching  in  Galilee.  His  appearance  at 
a  later  time  to  several  at  the  Sea  of  Tiberias  was  not  to  prove  His 
resurrection,  for  all  knew  that  it  was  the  Lord,  but  to  instruct 
them,  especially  Peter,  in  regard  to  their  future  relations  to 
Him.  Luke  mentions  only  the  appearances  in  Judaea  —  the 
appearance  of  the  angels  to  the  women,  and  the  Lord's  appear- 
ance to  the  two  at  Emmaus,  and  incidentally  that  to  Peter;  and 
then  that  to  the  Eleven  when  He  ate  before  them.  Having 
thus  proved  that  He  had  really  arisen.  He  teaches  them  what  the 
Scriptures  had  foretold  of  His  death  and  resurrection,  and  of  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel  by  them  to  all  nations. 


596 


THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD. 


[Part  Vin. 


Sunday,  17th  Nisan,  9th  April,  A.  D.  30. 


Matt,  xxviii.  2-4. 


As  the  daj-  hegins  to  dawn  there  is  a  great  earth- 
quake; and  an  angel  of  the  Lord,  descending,  rolls  away 
the  stone  from  the  door  of  the  sepulchre  and  sits  upon  it. 
For  fear  of  him,  the  soldiers  become  as  dead  men.  Im- 
mediately after  come  Mary  Magdalene  and  other  women, 
to  anoint  the  body.  As  they  approach  the  sepulchre, 
Mary  Magdalene,  beholding  the  stone  rolled  away,  and 
supposing  that  the  body  has  been  removed  by  the  Jew's, 
runs  to  lind  Peter  and  John  to  inform  them.  The  other 
women  proceed  to  the  sepulchre,  and  there  meet  an  an- 
gel (or  angels)  who  tells  them  of  the  Lord's  resurrec- 
tion, and  gives  them  a  message  to  the  disciples. 

Soon  after  they  have  departed,  Peter  and  John,  who 
have  heard  the  story  of  Mary  Magdalene,  come  in  haste 
to  see  what  has  occurred  ;  and  Mary  follows  them.  En- 
tering the  sepulchre,  they  land  it  empty,  and  the  grave 
clothes  lying  in  order,  and  John  then  believes.  They 
leave  the  tomb  to  return,  but  Mary  remains  behind  weep- 
ing. Looking  into  the  sepulchre,  she  sees  two  angels, 
and  immediately  after,  the  Lord  appears  to  her  and 
gives  her  a  message  to  bear  to  the  disciples;  and  soon 
after,  gives  another  message  to  some  of  the  other  women. 
The  accounts  of  the  women  seem  to  the  disciples  as  idle 
tales,  and  are  not  believed.  Upon  the  return  of  the 
soldiers  from  the  sepulchre  into  the  city,  the  priests  and 
elders,  learning  what  had  taken  place,  bribe  them  to 
spread  the  report  that  the  disciples  had  stolen  the  body 
away. 

The  number  of  the  Lord's  appearances  after  the  resurrection 
during  the  forty  days  following,  or  to  His  ascension,  as  given  by 
the  Evangelists,  is  generally  said  to  be  nine.  ^  Of  these,  five 
were  on  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  one  on  the  Sunday  follow- 
ing, two  at  some  later  period,  and  one  when  He  ascended.  As 
regards  place,  five  were  in  Jerusalem,  one  in  Emmaus,  two  in 
Galilee,  and  one  on  the  Mount  of  Olives.  If  to  these  we  add 
that  to  James,  mentioned  only  by  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  xv.  1), 
which  was  probably  at  Jerusalem,  we  have  ten  recorded  ap- 
pearances. We  may  well  believe  that  these  were  not  all, 
the  language  in  Acts  i.  3,  R.  V.  :  "  Appearing  unto  them  by  the 
space  of  forty  days,  and  speaking  the  things  concerning  the  king- 
dom of  God,"  clearly  implying  that  the  Lord  met  the  apostles 
often  for  instruction, 


Matt,  xxviii.  1. 
Mark  xvi.  1. 
Luke  xxiv.  1. 
John  xx.  1,  2. 

Mark  xvi.  2-8. 
Luke  xxiv.  2-8. 
Matt,  xxviii.  5-8. 

John  xx.  3-10. 
Luke  xxiv.  1?  &  24 


John  xx.  11-18. 


Matt,  xxviii.  9,  10. 
Mark  xvi.  9-11. 
Luke  xxiv.  9-11. 
Matt,  xxviii.  11-15. 


Part  VIII.]        ONE    OR    TWO    APPEARANCES?  597 

To  deal  with  the  many  intricate  details  which  the  Lord's  appear- 
ances present,  it  will  be  well  to  examine  each  appearance  by  itself, 
taking  them  in  the  order  of  their  occurrence. 

I.  The  appearances  on  the  day  of  the  resurrection.  These  were 
five  in  number:  1.  To  Mary  Magdalene.  2:  To  the  other  women. 
3.  To  the  two  disciples  at  Emmaus.  4.  To  Peter.  5.  To  the  Eleven 
at  evening.  If  we  identify  that  to  Mary  Magdalene  with  that  to  the 
other  women,  we  have  four;  if  we  also  identify  that  to  Peter  with 
that  to  the  two  at  Emmaus,  as  Lightfoot,  we  have  only  three.' 

1.  Thus  the  first  point  before  us  is,  Were  there  one  or  two  appear- 
ances of  the  Lord  to  the  women,  and  if  two,  to  whom  were  they 
made?  But  before  we  can  determine  this,  there  are  some  preliminary 
questions  to  be  considered  :  the  number  of  the  women  who  came  to 
the  sepulchre;  whether  all  came  together,  or  in  two  or  more  parties; 
the  times  of  their  arrival;  and  the  several  angelic  appearances  and 
messages. 

(a)  The  number  of  the  women.  "We  know  that  a  considerable 
number  came  from  Galilee,  some  of  whose  names  are  mentioned: 
Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  mother  of  James,  Salome,  Joanna,  Susanna, 
and  "many  others"  (Mark  xv.  41).  Some  of  these  came  to  anoint 
the  Lord's  body  as  early  as  possiljle  on  the  morning  after  the  Sabbath 
(Luke  xxiv.  1).  Of  these,  John  (xx.  1)  mentions  Mary  Magdalene 
only;  Matt,  (xxviii.  1)  mentions  Mary  Magdalene  and  "the  other 
Mary";  Mark  (xvi.  1),  Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  mother  of  James,  and 
Salome;  Luke  (xxiii.  55) :  "  The  women  which  came  with  Him  from 
Galilee;"  and  of  these  are  mentioned  by  name  (xxiv.  10),  Mary  Mag- 
dalene, Joanna,  and  Mary  mother  of  James.  (Susanna  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  accounts  of  the  crucifixion.)  Thus  there  were  five  and 
more  women;  how  many  more  is  conjecture. 

(h)  Did  these  women  come  to  the  sepulchre  together,  or  in  distinct 
parties,  and  at  successive  times?  John  mentions  Mary  Magdalene  only, 
but  it  is  generally  agreed  that  her  words  :  "  We  know  not,"  etc.,  im- 
ply that  one,  or  more,  were  with  her.  Matthew  mentions  two ;  Mark, " 
three;  do  they  thus  exclude  all  others?  This  is  said  by  McClellan 
(514).  But  the  more  reasonable  view  is  that  no  one  of  the  Evangelists 
designs  to  enumerate  all  who  came  early  to  the  sepulchre;  they  men- 
tion only  those  who  took  a  leading  part,  or  whose  presence  had  to 
them  some  special  significance.  How  many  women  came,  who  they 
were,  whence  they  came,  whether  singly  or  in  groups,  circumstances 
important  indeed  in  a  court  of  justice,  were  to  them  minor  matters. 


1  An  appearance  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  that  the  first  of  all,  is  affirmed  by  Maldona- 
tus,a  Lapide,  and  others,  but  has  no  other  basis  than  a  desire  to  honor  her. 


598  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIII. 

All  agree  in  this,  that  the  Lord  first  appeared  to  some  women,  but  they 
use  great  freedom  in  the  arrangement  of  the  details.  As  we  have  seen, 
they  are  not  designing  to  prove  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  by  heap- 
ing up  evidence,  but  are  illustrating  the  manner  in  which  the  Lord 
manifested  Himself,  the  gradual  steps  of  the  manifestation,  and  the 
difficulty  in  awakening  belief.  We  are  not  then  to  regard  the  men- 
tion of  one  or  two  or  more  women  by  name  as  necessarily  exclusive  of 
others.  Nor  does  it  prove  that  they  came  to  the  sepulchre  in  so  many 
distinct  groups.  All  may  have  reached  it  together,  or  nearly  so;  the 
Evangelists,  for  reasons  connected  with  their  narratives,  making  prom- 
inent one  or  more.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  Intrinsic  im- 
probability in  supposing  that  there  were  two  or  more  distinct  parties. 
That  they  lodged  in  different  parts  of  the  city,  perhaps  some  in  Beth- 
any, and  so  came  from  different  quarters,  is  not  unlikely,  and  if  so, 
they  would  arrive  at  the  sepulchre  at  successive  times. ^  But  the  fact 
of  successive  parties  does  not  decide  the  question  as  to  one  or  two 
appearances  of  the  Lord  to  them. 

(c)  The  time  of  their  arrival  at  the  sepulchre.  Our  examination 
of  Matthew  xxviii.  1,  has  shown  us  that  as  regards  the  time  of 
arrival  at  the  sepulchre,  he  is  in  accord  with  the  other  Evangelists. 
Luke  (xxiv.  1)  marks  the  time  as  "on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  very 
early  in  the  morning"  (in  R.  V.,  "at  early  dawn");  John  (xx.  1)  as 
"early,  when  it  was  yet  dark."  But  Mark  (xvi.  2)  has  two  designa- 
tions of  the  time :  "very  early  in  the  morning  "  —  \iav  irpwt —  and  "  at 
the  rising  of  the  sun  "  —  avareiXavTos  toO  r]\lov  —  (in  R.  V.,  "  when  the 
sun  was  risen";  in  Vul.  orto  jam  sole;  see  W.  and  H.  in  margin). 
Assuming  that  the  rendering  in  R.  V.  is  right  —  "  When  the  sun  was 
risen," — are  the  two  designations  of  time  inconsistent?  As  "  earlj' " 
—  irput — is  used  of  the  fourth  watch,  3  to  6  a.  m.,  "very  early" 
would  indicate  the  first  part  of  this  period.  As  we  cannot  suj)pose 
the  Evangelist  would  contradict  himself  in  the  same  sentence,  we 
must  conclude  that  he  speaks  of  the  sunrise,  not  as  its  appearing 
-above  the  horizon  but  as  bringing  in  the  day,  the  illumination  her- 
alding its  coming,  or,  as  said  by  Ellicott,  "  a  general  definition  of  the 
time"  (so  Rob.,  see  however  Caspari,  239,  who  maintains  that  the 
aorist  participle  should  have  been  translated,  "  when  the  sun  was  about 
to  rise,  sole  orituw).  If  this  be  inadmissible,  we  may  say  with  Gres- 
well  (iii.  283)  and  others,  that   "very  early"  maybe   luidcrstood   of 


1  That,  as  said  in  Speaker's  Com.,  Zebedce  had  a  house  in  Jerusalem  near  the 
gate  Gennath,  and  near  the  sepulchre,  and  that  from  this  his  wife  Salome  and  Mary 
Magdalene  and  the  other  Mary  started,  while  Joanna,  wife  of  Herod's  steward,  started 
with  others  from  the  Ilasmonean  palace  on  Mt.  Zion,  more  remote,  has  very  slight  tradi- 
tional basis. 


Part  VJIl.]    ANGELS  AND  THE  ANGELIC  APPEARANCES.    599 

the  time  when  the  women  first  set  out,  and  "  when  the  sun  had  risen," 
of  the  time  when  they  reached  the  sepulchre. 

In  this  discussion  as  to  the  time  of  their  arrival,  it  is  necessary  to 
keep  in  mind  that  at  this  season  of  the  year  the  sun  rose  about  half- 
past  five,  and  it  began  to  be  light  enough  to  discern  objects  at  least 
half  an  hour  earlier. ' 

As  we  cannot  suppose  that  the  women  would  leave  their  homes 
till  the  day  began  to  break,  and  yet  would  endeavor  to  reach  the  sepul- 
chre as  early  as  possible,  we  may  place  the  earliest  arrival,  that  of 
Mary  Magdalene,  at  about  5  A.  m.  (so  Westcott;  McClellan,  the  first 
arrival  at  4.45  A.  M.).  The  only  discrepancy  as  to  time  of  arrival  is 
found  in  the  statements  of  Mark  and  John.  According  to  the  former 
the  sun  had  arisen ;  according  to  the  latter,  it  was  yet  dark  —  cKoria. 
But  this  is  an  indefinite  expression,  and  if  strictly  taken,  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  fact  that  Mary  Magdalene  saw  that  the  stone  had 
been  rolled  away,  and  this  apparently  while  yet  at  some  distance. 

{d)  The  angelic  aiifearances  to  the  tmrnen^  and  the  number  of  the 
angels.  According  to  John,  Mary  Magdalene,  seeing  that  the  stone 
was  rolled  away,  did  not  go  to  the  sepulchre  or  see  any  angel,  but  ran 
immediately  to  tell  Peter  and  John ;  on  her  return  she  saw  two  angels. 
According  to  Matthew,  the  two  Marys  saw  an  angel  who  spake  to 
them  and  gave  them  a  message  to  the  disciples.  According  to  Mark, 
the  two  Marys  and  Salome  entered  into  the  sepulchre,  and  saw  there  an 
angel  who  gave  them  a  message.  According  to  Luke,  all  the  women 
saw  that  the  stone  was  rolled  away,  and  entering  the  sepulchre,  saw 
two  angels  who  addressed  them.  We  thus  conclude  that  there  were 
three  ai)pearances  of  the  angels  to  the  women. 

The  discrepancies  as  to  the  number  of  the  angels  seen  are  of 
small  importance.  "We  know  so  little  of  the  modes  of  angelic  exist- 
ence, how  they  who  are  ordinarily  invisible  can  make  themselves 
visible,  what  parts  were  here  severally  assigned  to  them,  and  of  the 
grounds  of  their  action,  that  it  is  wholly  impossible  for  us  to  say  how 
many  may  have  been  present  at  this  time  within  or  around  the  sepul- 
chre. Doubtless  the  angelic  guards  were  there  watching  over  the 
body  of  their  Lord  all  the  time  it  was  in  the  tomb.  As  said  by 
Lessing:  "  They  appeared,  not  always  one  and  the  same,  not  always 
the  same  two;  sometimes  this  one  appeared,  sometimes  that;  sometimes 


1  The  following,  kindly  furnished  by  Prof.  Luther  of  Trinity  College,  will  be  found 
of  value:  "  I  make  sun's  declination  on  the  morning  of  April  9,  A.  D.  30,  7°  27'  7";  time 
of  sunrise,  5h.  37m.  24s.  apparent  time;  5h.  .39m.  12s.  meantime;  twilight  begins  at 
4h.  28m.  approximately."  See  in  McClellan,  526,  a  less  accurate  statement.  Robinson 
(iii.  35)  speaks  of  breakfasting  in  Northern  Palestine  "  by  the  dim  mingled  light  of  the 
grey  dawn  and  the  pale  moon,  and  at  5.10  we  were  again  on  our  way." 


600  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR   LORD.  [Part  VIII. 

in  this  place,  sometimes  in  that;  sometimes  alone,  sometimes  in  com- 
pany; sometimes  they  said  this,  sometimes  they  said  that."  Matthew 
and  Mark  each  speak  of  one  angel ;  in  the  first,  he  meets  the  women 
■without  the  sepulchre,  and  invites  them  to  enter:  ''  Come,  see  the  place 
where  the  Lord  lay  " ;  in  the  last,  he  meets  them  within  the  sepul- 
chre, and  says  to  them,  "  Behold,  the  place  where  they  laid  Him."  It 
is  impossible  for  us  to  say  whether  the  same  angel  is  meant  by  the 
two  Evangelists.  Luke  mentions  two  angels  seen  by  the  women, 
standing  within  the  sepulchre ;  and  John,  that  Mary  Magdalene  saw 
"  two  angels  in  white  sitting,  the  one  at  the  head,  the  other  at  the 
feet,  where  the  body  of  Jesus  had  lain." 

{e)  The  messages  given  hy  the  cnigeJs.  Matthew  mentions  one,  that 
to  the  two  Marys:  "Go  quickly  and  tell  His  disciples  that  He  is 
risen  from  the  dead;  and,  behold,  He  goeth  before  you  into  Galilee, 
there  shall  ye  see  Him  ";  and  adds,  to  emphasize  the  certainty  of  this, 
"  Lo,  I  have  told  you."  The  message  in  Mark  is  almost  the  same: 
"  Go  your  way,  tell  His  disciples  and  Peter  that  He  goeth  before  you 
into  Galilee,  there  shall  ye  see  Him,  as  He  said  unto  you."  In  Luke 
no  message  is  given,  but  the  women  are  reminded  that  the  Lord, 
while  yet  in  Galilee,  had  foretold  His  crucifixion  and  resurrection. 
In  John,  nothing  is  said  of  any  message  given  to  Mary  Magdalene; 
the  two  angels  simply  ask  her,  "  Woman,  why  w-eepest  thou? "  Thus 
the  Lord  sent  by  the  angels  through  the  women  apparently  but  one 
message  to  His  disciples — the  direction  to  go  into  Galilee.  The 
Lord's  own  message  through  the  women  (Matt,  xxviii.  10)  was  a  rep- 
etition of  this ;  that  to  Mary  Magdalene  was  of  another  character. 

We  may  now  consider  the  point  whether  there  were  one  or  two 
appearances  of  the  Lord  to  the  women. 

The  real  ground  of  the  difficulties  which  some  find  in  regard  to 
these  appearances  lies  in  this  :  that  the  Evangelists  use  the  liberty 
which  is  given  to  all  chroniclers  or  historians,  to  speak  of  things  as 
happening  to  one  or  two  which  in  fact  happened  to  more,  and 
as  happening  to  several,  when  in  fact  they  happened  but  to  one. 
When  Mark  says  that  "Jesus  went  into  the  borders  of  Tyre  and 
Sidon,  and  entered  into  a  house,  and  would  that  no  man  should  know 
it,"  no  one  supposes  that  He  was  absolutely  alone;  we  know  from 
other  sources,  and  from  Mark  himself,  that  the  Twelve  were  with  Him. 
When  John  says  tliat  Mary  Magdalene  came  to  the  sepulchre,  saying 
nothing  of  others,  this  does  not  show  that  she  came  alone.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  other  Evangelists  The  mention  of  the  two  Marys 
by  Matthew,  and  of  them  and  Salome  by  Mark,  does  not  show  that 
no  others  were  with  them,  or  compel  us  to  say  that  there  were  two 


Part  VIII.]      THE   ANGEL   AND   THE   EARTHQUAKE,  601 

distinct  parties  coming  at  diflferent  times.  Whether,  when  Matthew 
speaks  of  the  Lord's  appearing  to  the  tw^o  Marys,  he  is  speaking  of 
the  same  appearance  which  John  mentions  when  Mary  Magdalene 
only  is  named,  must  be  determined  by  an  examination  of  the  de- 
tails and  attendant  circumstances. 

We  now  proceed  to  ask  whether  the  appearance  of  the  Lord  in 
Matthew  (xxviii.  9,  10)  is  to  be  identified  with  that  in  John  (xx.  14) 
and  Mark  (xvi.  9).  Before  comparing  them,  each  account  must  be 
considered. 

According  to  Matthew,  the  two  Marys,  as  they  approached  the  sep- 
ulchre, saw  an  angel  sitting  upon  the  stone  that  had  been  rolled  back 
from  the  door.  Were  they  witnesses  of  the  earthquake  and  of  what 
followed?  This  is  said  by  Meyer,  Alford,  and  others.  But  the  render- 
ing: "  There  was  a  great  earthquake,"  does  not  show  that  this  was 
after  the  arrival  of  the  women.'  It  is  the  more  general  belief  that  the 
earthquake  was  earlier,  and  that  the  stone  had  been  rolled  away 
before  they  came.  Whether  the  women  saw  the  soldiers  lying  as 
dead  men  before  the  angel,  or  whether  they  had  already  gone  into  the 
city,  is  in  question.  Some  understand  the  angels'  words  "Fear  not 
ye,"  addressed  to  the  women,  as  marking  a  contrast  between  them  and 
the  terror-stricken  keepers.  His  presence  sitting  ujDon  the  stone,  was 
the  proof  that  the  stone  had  not  been  rolled  away  by  the  earthquake 
or  by  human  hands.  It  was  a  sign  to  j^rove  how  vain  it  was  to  shut 
and  seal  and  guard  what  the  Lord  would  open. 

The  connection  between  the  descent  of  the  angel  and  rolling  away 
of  the  stone,  and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord,  is  not  defined.  It 
was  the  general  opinion  of  the  fathers,  that  He  rose  and  left  the  tomb 
before  the  stone  was  rolled  away;  the  object  of  this  act  by  the  angel 
being,  not  to  give  the  Lord  a  way  of  exit,  but  to  open  the  way  for 
the  women  to  enter.  There  is  no  indication  that  the  soldiers  saw 
Jesus  as  He  left  the  sepulchre,  and  their  terror  is  expressly  ascribed 
to  the  sight  of  the  angel. 

Whether  by  the  "earthquake,"  aeifffjAs,  we  are  to  understand  a 
literal  earthquake,  has  been  questioned.  Some  would  refer  it  to  the 
confusion  or  commotion  which  the  sudden  appearance  of  the  angel 
made  among  the  soldiers  keeping  watch ;  others  to  the  shook  made 
by  the  rolling  away  of  the  stone,  which  was  very  great;  others  to  a 
tempest,  or  tempest  and  earthquake.''     If,    however,  it  was  a  literal 


'  It  is  said  by  Canon  Coolv:  "  The  aorist  declares  the  fact,  not  the  time  of  its  oc- 
currence"; and  by  Riddle:  "The  aorists  have  their  usual  force,  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  the  events  succeeded  the  arrival  of  the  women."    See  Winer,  Gram.,  Trans.,  275. 

2  The  word  means  literally  "a  shaking"  without  defining  the  cause.    See  Matt 
viii.  24,  where  it  is  rendered  "  tempest ;  "  compare  Ileb.  xii.  26,  27,  and  Matt.  xxi.  10. 
26 


BOS  THE    LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD,  [Part  VIII. 

earthquake,  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  was  felt  throughout  the  city,  for 
such  an  event,  taken  in  connection  with  what  occurred  at  the  cruci- 
fixion, could  scarce  have  passed  unnoticed  by  the  disciples.  "The 
first  earthquake,"  says  Stier,  "extended  all  over  Jerusalem  to  the 
temple  and  graves;  the  second  only  moves  the  stone  in  Joseph's  gar- 
den, and  scares  the  guards  away."  ' 

After  announcing  to  the  women  that  the  Lord  is  not  in  the  sepul- 
3hre,  but  is  risen  as  He  said,  the  angel  invites  them  to  come  and  see 
the  place  where  He  lay,  and  then  gives  them  the  message  to  the  dis- 
ciples. "And  they  departed  quickly  from  the  tomb  with  fear  and 
great  joy,  and  ran  to  bring  His  disciples  word.  And  behold  Jesus 
met  them,  saying,  'All  hail,'  and  they  came  and  took  hold  of  His 
feet  and  worshipped  Him.  Then  saith  Jesus  unto  them.  Fear  not,  go 
tell  my  brethren  that  they  depart  into  Galilee,  and  there  shall  they 
see  Me." 

We  turn  to  the  account  of  John  (xx.  1-12).  Mary  Magda- 
lene alone  is  mentioned,  but  that  she  was  unaccompanied  is  not 
probable,  the  hour  being  so  early ;  and  incidental  proof  that  others 
were  with  her  is  found  in  the  use  of  the  plural  (verse  2)  :  "  We 
know  not  where  they  have  laid  Him."  (Compare  verse  13,  where 
the  singular  is  used  ;  so  Norton,  Luthardt,  Stier,  Godet,  M.  and 
M.)  The  sepulchre,  whether  it  was  on  the  traditional  site  or 
elsewhere,  was  probably  excavated  in  a  rocky  ridge,  and  its 
entrance  or  door  visible  at  some  distance.  Mary  Magdalene, 
who  saw  no  more  than  that  the  stone  was  rolled  away,  naturally 
supposed  that  the  body  had  been  taken  away,  and  leaving  those 
with  her  ran  to  find  Peter  and  John.  Whether  the  two  apostles 
lodged  together,  we  do  not  know.  (The  inference  drawn  from 
the  repetition  of  the  preposition,  "  She  cometh  to  Simon  Peter, 


1  As  to  the  construction  of  Jewish  tombs  in  the  Lord's  time,  reference  must  be 
made  to  those  who  have  written  of  them.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  here  that  the  best  in- 
formed divide  the  rock-cut  tomb  into  two  classes  —  A'oAr/M  tombs  and  Xoci//(^«  tombs. 
In  the  former,  the  body  is  laid  in  a  tunnel  cut  at  right  angles  with  the  face  of  the  rock, 
the  head  being  at  the  further  end,  and  the  feet  at  its  entrance.  This  was  the  earlier 
form,  the  loculus  tomb  is  later.  In  this  the  body  lay  parallel  with  the  side  of  the 
chamber  in  a  cavity  or  recess.  That  the  tomb  in  which  the  Lord  lay  was  of  this  kind, 
appears  from  the  fact  that  Mary  Magdalene  saw  the  angels  sitting  one  at  His  head, 
another  at  His  feet,  a  thing  impossible  in  a  kokim  tomb.  The  tombs  were  closed  in  sev- 
eral ways,  but  the  rolling  stone  w^as  most  in  use  at  this  time.  This  stone  is  described  as 
round,  generally  about  three  feet  in  diameter  and  one  foot  in  thickness,  with  an  average 
weight  of  COO  pounds.  Running  in  an  inclined  groove,  it  was  difficult  to  move  it  back, 
and  the  shock  of  an  earthquake  could  hardly  have  done  this.  That  the  tomb  in  the  gar- 
den was  thus  closed,  there  is  little  reason  to  doubt.  SeeConder,  Qt.  St.,  1869,  p.  31,  etc., 
also  Qt.  St.,  1876  and  1877;  Tobler,  Qt.  St.,  1875, 1878. 


Part  Vlll.]      APPEARANCE   TO   MARY   M.    FIRST.  603 

and  to  the  other  disciple,"  that  she  found  them  in  separate 
places  —  so  Bengel  and  others  —  is  not  certain.)  Peter  and  John, 
hearing  the  words  of  Mary,  immediately  run  to  the  sepulchre, 
and  enter  it  to  find  only  the  grave  clothes  and  napkin  ;  no  angel 
is  seen.  They  depart,  and  Mary  Magdalene,  who  must  have  fol- 
lowed them  although  her  return  is  not  mentioned,  and  now 
stood  by  the  sepulchre,  stooping  down  looked  into  it  and  saw 
two  angels,  who  addressed  her,  asking  why  she  wept.  She  turned 
back,  and  then  she  saw  the  Lord,  who  addressed  her  and  gave 
her  a  message  to  bear  to  His  brethren. 

Comparing  the  accounts  of  Matthew  and  John,  do  they 
refer  to  the  same  appearance  ?  Was  Mary  Magdalene  alone,  or 
were  others  with  her  when  she  saw  the  Lord?  That  she  was 
alone,  is  the  impression  which  the  whole  narrative  makes  upon 
us.  Every  circumstance  indicates  this  ;  the  Lord  addresses  her 
alone  :  "  Woman,  why  weepest  thou  ?  "  He  calls  her  by  name, 
"Mary";  (contrast  this  with  His  salutation  to  the  women:  "All 
hail.")  And  it  is  confirmed  by  Mark's  words  (xvi.  9):  "He 
appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene."  It  is  said  that  these  words 
do  not  mean  that  His  first  appearance,  absolutely  speaking,  was 
to  her,  but  that  the  first  of  the  appearances  related  by  Mark 
was  to  her.  Thus  Robinson:  "Mark  mentions  three  and  only 
three  appearances  of  the  Lord;  of  these  three,  that  to  Mary 
Magdalene  takes  place  first."  But  the  larger  part  of  the  com- 
mentators understand  Mark's  words  as  referring  to  His  first 
appearance  to  any  one  after  His  resurrection,  and  as  showing 
that  Mary  Magdalene  was  alone  (see  Riddle's  note,  Har.  270). 

Wfe  are  led  to  the  same  result  by  considering  the  Lord's 
words  to  Mary  Magdalene,  and  the  message  He  gave  her.  It 
is  not  in  our  province  to  interpret  the  words,  "Touch  me  not, 
for  I  am  not  yet  ascended  to  my  Father,"  but  the  message 
He  gave  her  —  "  Go  to  my  brethren  and  say  unto  them,  I  ascend 
unto  my  Father  and  your  Father,  and  to  my  God  and  your  God," 
—  must  be  regarded  in  its  nilations  to  the  time  and  purpose  for 
which  it  was  given.  It  was  not  like  that  in  Matthew  (xxviii.  1 0), 
a  direction  to  go  to  Galilee.  What  was  its  significance  ?  It  is 
said  by  Townson,  that  it  was  a  voucher  to  the  apostles  tliat  Mary 
Magdalene  had  actually  seen  Him,  for  He  had  spoken  these  very 


604  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIII. 

words  to  them  on  the  evening  before  His  death  (John  xiv.  12^ 
28,  xvi.  16,  17).  Hearing  them  now  repeated  from  her  lips, 
they  could  not  doubt  that  He  had  appeared  to  her.  Admitting 
that  the  message  might  thus  serve  as  a  voucher,  this  does  not 
fully  explain  its  meaning.  The  Lord  seems  here  to  intend 
to  recall  to  the  minds  of  the  apostles  His  last  discourse  to 
them  in  its  chief  themes  —  His  departure  to  the  Father,  the 
sending  of  the  Comforter,  and  their  work  as  His  witnesses 
during  His  absence.  Thus,  He  encourages  them  to  enter  upon 
their  new  work,  and  to  look  to  Him,  as  risen  and  about  to  go 
into  heaven  to  be  with  the  Father  who  loved  Him,  who  also  is 
their  Father;  and  with  God,  who  has  all  power  and  can  ever 
upliold  His  servants.  Greater  works  than  He  had  done  should 
His  servants  do,  because  He  ascends  unto  the  Father.  Thus 
they  were  taught  that  His  death  did  not  dissolve  their  apostolic 
relation  to  Him ;  with  His  resurrection  their  true  apostolic  activ- 
ity was  to  begin.  It  is  not  congruous  with  the  spirit  of  this 
message  that  the  Lord  should  immediately  after  direct  Mary 
Magdalene  to  go  and  tell  His  brethren  to  go  into  Galilee.  It 
would  more  fitly  be  given  to  other  messengers. 

Thus  comparing  the  several  accounts  of  the  Evangelists,  we 
conclude  that  the  Lord  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene  alone, 
and  afterward  to  other  women;  and  that  His  two  messages  in 
Matthew  and  John  are  not  to  be  identified  as  given  to  the  same 
persons.' 

If  we  accept  two  appearances  of  the  Lord  to  the  women,  one 
to  Mary  Magdalene  alone,  and  one  to  other  women,  in  what  rela- 
tions of  time,  place,  and  persons  do  the  two  stand  to  each  other? 

As  to  time.  We  have  already  seen  reason  to  believe  that 
the  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene  was  the  first.  But  some  who 
accept  two  appearances  invert  this  order.  Thus  Robinson  puts 
the  first  appearance  to  the  other  women  while  Mary  Magdalene 
was  going  to  call  Peter  and  John.  But  we  thus  encounter  the 
difficulty  that  the  women  first  reported  a  vision  of  angels  (Luke 


'  Opinions  whether  there  were  one  or  two  appearances  of  the  Lord  to  the  women, 
are  very  evenly  divided.  For  one  appearance:  Lightfoot,  Lardner,  Bengel,  Godet,  Bantn- 
lein,  Caspar!,  Da  Costa,  Liclitenstein,  Ebrard,  Greswell,  Krafft,  Tischendorf,  Wieseler, 
Thohick,  Weitbrecht;  undecided,  Edersheim.  For  two  appearances:  West,  Newcome, 
Olshausen,  Stier,  Robinson,  Patritins,  Friedlieb,  Riddle,  Gardiner,  EUicott,  Geikie, 
McClellan,  Farrar,  Lange,  Sepp,  Riggenbach,  Stroud. 


Part  VIII.]       APPEARANCES   TO   THE   WOMEN.  605 

xxiv.  23),  which  shows  that  at  this  time  they  had  not  seen  the 
Lord.  The  order  of  Giekie,  who  puts  a  very  Httle  interval  of 
time  between  the  two  appearances,  is  open  to  the  same  objection. 
According  to  him,  while  Mary  Magdalene  runs  to  call  Peter  and 
John,  the  other  women  remain  in  the  garden  till  she  returns,  and 
while  the  Lord  is  yet  speaking  with  her,  they  approach  and  wor- 
ship at  His  feet,  and  receive  His  message.  Greswell  puts  the 
appearance  to  the  other  women  a  week  after  that  to  Mary  Mag- 
dalene. In  this  he  stands  alone.  As  bearing  on  this  point  of 
time,  we  must  keep  in  mind  the  fact  already  referred  to,  that 
the  first  report  from  the  sepulchre  was  that  of  a  vision  of  angels ; 
this  was  all  that  was  known  by  the  two  disciples  when  they  left 
Jerusalem  for  Emmaus.  This  vision  must  have  been  some  time 
before  any  one  saw  the  Lord ;  and  some  women  must,  therefore, 
have  been  at  the  sepulchre,  and  returned  to  the  city  and  told 
the  disciples  there  of  that  vision  before  Mary  Magdalene  could 
have  brought  to  them  her  joyful  tidings. 

As  to  the  2)lace.  Mary  Magdalene  saw  the  Lord  in  the  gar- 
den and  near  the  sepulchre;  where  did  He  meet  the  other 
women?  It  is  said  by  Matthew  (xxviii.  8,  9)  that  after  seeing 
the  angels  in  the  sepulchre,  they  left  it,  "  and  did  run  to  bring 
His  disciples  word.  And  as  they  went  to  tell  His  disciples,  be- 
hold, Jesus  met  them."  (In  R.  V.,  "  And  as  they  went  to  tell 
His  disciples,"  is  omitted.)  It  is  impossible  to  judge  from  this 
account  whether  He  met  them  in  the  garden  or  without  it;  but 
as  the  garden  could  not  well  have  been  a  large  one,  we  may 
suppose  it  was  without  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  place  of  His 
manifestation  could  not  well  have  been  in  a  street  of  a  crowded 
city.  It  is  not  improbable  that  they  were  lodging  outside  the 
city  walls,  and  that  He  met  them  at  some  secluded  part  of  the 
road. 

As  to  the  persons.  That  Mary  Magdalene  did  not  go  alone  to  the 
sepulchre,  is  most  probable.  Who  were  with  her?  Was  the  other 
Mary  only?  Were  there  two,  the  other  Mary  and  Salome?  Were  all 
the  Galilsean  women  with  her?  The  most  probable  supposition  is, 
that  most  of  these  women,  (for  there  were  others  whose  names  are  not 
mentioned,)  went  to  the  sepulchre,  either  to  help  in  anointing  the 
body  or  to  look  upon  the  place  where  He  was  lying.  It  is  not  likely 
that  all  went  together,  for  probably  they  lodged  in  several  different 


606  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VI 11. 

places,  but  as  all  would  go  early,  they  would  all  arrive  at  nearly  the 
same  time.  It  is  easily  credible  that  Mary  Magdalene,  the  other 
Mary,  and  Salome  may  have  gone  together  and  reached  the  sepulchre 
first.  This  group  may  have  been  divided  into  two  by  the  going  of 
Mary  Magdalene  to  call  Peter  and  John.  In  this  case  the  two  remain- 
ing women  enter  the  sepulchre,  see  the  angels,  receive  a  message,  and 
return  back  to  the  disciples  in  the  city.  Did  another  party  of 
women,  of  Avhom  the  name  of  Joanna  only  is  given,  come  to  the  tomb 
■while  they  and  Mary  Magdalene  were  absent?  There  is  nothing  in- 
credible in  this,  and  some  affirm  it.  If  so,  it  must  have  been  to  them 
that  the  vision  of  angels  recorded  by  Luke  (xxiv.  4)  was  given. 
According  to  this  arrangement,  we  have:  1st,  the  vision  of  angels 
given  to  the  other  Mary  and  Salome  (Matt.)  ;  2d,  that  given  to  Joanna 
and  those  with  her  (Luke) ;  3d,  that  to  Mary  Magdalene  on  her  return 
to  the  tomb  (John).  All  three  were  before  the  appearance  of  the 
Lord  to  Mary  Magdalene.  To  which  of  the  groups,  the  second  or 
third,  did  the  Lord  afterward  ajjpear  ?  If  to  the  second  —  the  other 
Mary  and  Salome  —  it  must  have  been  after  their  return  from  deliv- 
ering the  message  given  them  by  the  angel,  since  otherwise  they, 
having  seen  Him,  would  have  announced  His  resurrection.  If  to 
the  third  —  Joanna  and  those  with  her —  it  could  not  have  been  long 
after  His  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene. 

On  the  supposition  of  two  appearances  of  the  Lord  to  the  women, 
several  divisions  of  the  persons  have  been  made  to  show  to  whom  He 
appeared  the  second  time.     We  may  thus  classify  them : 

1.  To  all  the  women  together  except  Mary  Magdalene.  (So 
Gardiner,  Lex.,  Stroud,  Westcott,  Riddle,  Farrar,  Ellicott.) 

2.  To  all  including  Mary  Magdalene.     (So  Newcome.) 

3.  To  the  other  Mary  and  Salome.  (So  West,  Stier,  Grenville, 
Friedlieb.) 

4.  To  the  three  —  the  other  Mary,  Salome,  and  Mary  Magdalene. 
(So  Townson.) 

5.  To  the  two,  the  other  Mary  and  Mary  Magdalene.     (So  McClel.) 

6.  To  Joanna  and  her  party,  or  to  all  excepting  the  two  Marys  and 
Salome. 

Thus  according  to  three  of  the  above  divisions,  Mary  Magdalene 
twice  saw  the  Lord,  once  alone  and  once  in  company  with  others. 
It  is  said  by  a  Lapide  on  Matthew  (xxviii.  9)  that  this  was  held  by 
St.  Chrysostom,  Jerome,  and  others  of  the  fathers. 

We  have  not  space  to  give  the  various  arrangements  based  upon 
the  above  classification.  It  will  be  readily  seen  that  many  variations 
of  the  order  will  arise  if  we  suppose  the  women  to  have  arrived  at 


Part  VIIL]    TO   WHAT   WOMEN  THE   LORD   APPEARED.     607 

the  tomb  together,  or  in  two  or  more  groups.  Thus  Gardiner 
makes  but  one  party,  and  supposes  that  while  Mary  Magdalene 
went  to  Peter  and  John,  the  rest  entered  the  sepulchre  and  saw  the 
angel  and  received  his  message,  but  were  then  divided  into  two 
groups  —  some  being  so  territied  that  they  say  nothing  to  anyone 
(Mark),  the  others  bear  the  message  to  the  apostles,  and  subsequently 
return ;  and  it  is  on  this  return  that  the  Lord  appears  to  them.  On 
the  other  hand.  Riddle  makes  two  parties  —  the  two  Marys  and 
Salome  who  come  first  to  the  sepulchre,  and  while  Mary  Magdalene 
goes  to  find  Peter  and  John,  the  other  two  enter  the  tomb,  see  the 
angel,  hear  the  message,  and  go  back  to  meet  the  other  women.  In 
the  meantime,  IMary  Magdalene  sees  the  Lord,  and  returns  to  the  city 
to  give  His  message.  Her  two  companions  going  to  the  city,  meet 
the  other  women  on  their  way  to  the  sepulchre;  returning  with  them, 
they  see  the  two  angels,  and  on  their  way  back  to  the  city  they  see 
the  Lord.  McClellan  thinks  that  there  were  two  parties;  the  first  to 
reach  the  tomb  were  Joanna  and  those  with  her;  a  little  later  came 
the  two  Marys  and  Salome;  by  agreement,  the  last  party  goes  to  find 
Peter  and  John,  the  others  remaining  at  the  tomb.  Peter  and  John 
visit  the  tomb  and  go  back  to  tlie  city,  and  then  all  the  women  enter 
it,  see  the  angels,  receive  a  message  and  depart,  some  going  to  Beth- 
any and  some  to  the  apostles  in  the  city.  Peter  goes  a  second  time 
to  the  tomb  with  John  and  Mary  Magdalene;  the  two  apostles  return 
to  the  city,  and  then  Mary  Magdalene  sees  the  Lord,  and  returns  to 
give  His  message  to  the  disciples.  After  this  she  visits  the  tomb 
again  with  the  other  Mary,  and  on  the  way  the  Lord  meets  them. 
Thus  Mary  Magdalene  saw  Him  twice. 

A  point  not  yet  noticed  demands  attention.  Did  Peter  twice  visit 
the  sepulchre?  We  know  that  he  visited  it  with  John;  as  Luke 
(xxiv.  12)  does  not  speak  of  John,  not  a  few  have  said  that  Luke 
mentions  a  second  visit  of  Peter  alone.  The  cause  of  this  visit,  it  is 
said,  was  the  message  given  him  by  Mary  Magdalene  after  she  saw 
the  Lord  (so  .Jones) ;  but  McClellan  makes  the  cause  of  the  second 
visit  the  message  of  the  angel  by  the  women,  and  thinks  that  he  was 
accompanied  by  John  and  Mary  Magdalene;  it  was  after  this  second 
visit  that  she  saw  the  Lord.  But  most  identify  the  two  accounts  (so 
Keil,  Friedlieb,  Nebe,  Gardiner).' 

This  examination  of  the  several  narratives  shows  us  how  many  of 
the  data  are  wanting  which  are  necessary  to  enable  us  to  form  a  reg- 


1  The  genuineness  of  this  verse  (xxiv.  12)  has  been  questioned.  It  is  omitted  by 
Tisch.  and  braclveted  by  W.  and  H. ;  Gardiner  retains  it,  but  thinlis  "  it  may  have  slipped 
from  its  proper  place."    It  is  retained  by  Meyer,  Keil,  Riddle.  Friedlieb, 


608  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIII. 

ular,  harmonious,  aud  complete  history  of  this  eventful  morning. 
Each  of  the  Evangelists  gives  us  some  particulars  which  the  others 
omit,  but  no  one  of  them  aims  to  give  us  a  full  and  connected  account. 
To  a  superficial  examination  there  seem  many  discrepancies,  not  to 
say  contradictions,  but  a  thorough  investigation  shows  that  the  points 
of  real  difference  are  very  few,  and  that  in  several  ways  even  these 
differences  may  be  removed.  While  thus  we  cannot  say  of  any  order 
which  we  can  frame,  that  it  is  certain,  we  can  say  of  several  that  they 
are  probable;  and  if  they  cannot  be  proved,  neither  can  they  be  dis- 
proved. This  is  sufficient  for  him  who  finds  in  the  moral  character 
of  the  Gospels  the  highest  vouchers  for  their  historic  truth. 

To  bring  before  the  reader  some  of  the  many  possible  arrange- 
ments of  these  events,  and  to  show  what  the  special  diflBculties  in  the 
way  of  the  harmonists  are,  we  select  the  following.  It  will  be  noted 
that  the  point  which  chiefly  determines  the  order,  is  whether  Jesus 
appeared  once  or  twice  to  the  women.  We  begin  with  those  who 
affirm  only  one  appearance. 

I.  Liglitfoot.  1.  Earthquake  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  2.  Visit 
of  Mary  Magdalene  and  other  women  to  the  tomb,  which  they  reach 
just  as  the  sun  is  up.  They  are  told  of  His  resurrection  by  the  angels, 
and  go  back  to  the  discijiles.  3.  Peter  and  John  go  to  the  sepulchre 
followed  by  Mary  Magdalene.  They  return  and  she  remains.  4. 
Christ  appears  to  her  and  she  takes  Him  for  the  gardener.  She 
afterward  embraces  His  feet,  kissing  them.  Thus  Matthew^  (xxviii.  9) 
and  John  (xx.  14)  refer  to  the  same  appearance. 

Lardner.  1.  The  women  with  Mary  Magdalene  go  to  the  sepul- 
chre and  find  it  empty.  2.  Mary,  with  others,  goes  to  the  apostles 
Peter  and  John.  3.  They  come  to  the  tomb  and  then  return  home. 
4.  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  others  follow  the  two  apostles  back  to 
the  tomb,  and  remain  there  after  Peter  and  John  are  gone.  5.  Jesus 
appears  to  them  all  there.  6.  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  others  go  and 
announce  all  to  the  disciples.  Here,  also,  the  appearance  to  Mary 
Magdalene  mentioned  by  John,  and  that  to  the  two  Marys  mentioned 
by  Matthew,  are  made  the  same. 

Da  Costa.  1.  The  two  Marys,  Joanna,  Salome,  and  others,  start 
before  daybreak  for  the  sepulchre,  and  find  the  stone  rolled  away. 
2.  Mary  Magdalene  runs  to  find  Peter  and  John.  3.  The  other 
women  enter  the  sepulchre,  see  the  angels,  receive  their  message,  and 
return  to  the  disciples,  4.  Peter  and  John  visit  the  sepulchre  and 
depart  home.  5.  Mary  Magdalene,  who  had  followed  them,  sees  first 
the  angels  and  then  the  Lord,  and  returns  to  the  disciples.  Here  the 
Jliord  appears  to  Mary  Magdalene  only. 


Part  VIII.]     Order  of  the  appearances.  609 

Ebrard.  1.  Mary  Magdalene  visits  the  sepulchre  early  while  it  is 
yet  dark.  She  finds  the  stone  rolled  away,  and  runs  to  find  Peter  and 
John.  2.  Mary,  mother  of  James,  Joanna,  Salome,  and  other  women, 
go  to  anoint  the  body,  and  looking  into  the  tomb,  see  an  angel  who 
gives  them  a  message.  They  depart,  but  dare  not  report  to  any  one 
what  has  occurred.  3.  Peter  and  John  come  to  the  grave  and  return 
home.  4.  Mary  Magdalene,  who  had  followed  them,  sees  two  angels, 
and  then  the  Lord.  She  returns  and  tells  the  disciples.  Here  there 
is  one  appearance  only  —  that  to  Mary  Magdalene. 

II.  Arrangements  affirming  two  appearances  of  the  Lord  to  the 
women : 

Townson.  1.  The  two  Marys  and  Salome  go  to  the  tomb,  and 
while  they  are  on  the  way  the  angel  descends  and  rolls  away  the  stone. 
They  reach  it  at  the  rising  of  the  sun.  3.  Mary  Magdalene  goes  for 
Peter  and  John.  3.  The  other  Mary  and  Salome  enter  the  porch  of 
the  sepulchre,  see  an  angel,  receive  his  message,  and  depart  in  great 
fear.  4.  Peter  and  John  come  and  visit  the  tomb.  5.  Mary  Magda- 
lene returns  and  sees  first  the  angels  and  then  the  Lord.  6.  Mary 
Magdalene  departing,  falls  in  with  the  other  Mary  and.  Salome,  and 
to  them  together  Jesus  appears  the  second  time.  7.  Joanna  and  her 
party  now  come,  and,  entering  the  tomb,  see  two  angels.  They  re- 
turn, and  confirm  to  the  disciples  what  the  other  women  had  already 
reported.  8.  Peter  goes  a  second  time  to  the  sepulchre,  and  finds 
only  the  clothes.  9.  The  two  disciples  set  out  for  Emmaus.  10. 
The  Lord  appears  to  Peter.  Here  are  made  two  successive  appear 
ances  to  Mary  Magdalene :  first,  when  alone;  second,  to  her  in  com- 
pany with  the  other  Mary. 

Newcome.  1.  The  two  Marys,  Salome,  Joanna,  and  others,  go  to 
the  sepulchi^,  and,  finding  the  stone  removed,  enter  the  tomb.  Two 
angels  appear  to  them,  and  one  gives  them  a  message.  2.  They  re- 
turn to  Jerusalem,  and  Mary  Magdalene  communicates  the  message  to 
Peter  and  John,  and  the  other  women  to  the  other  disciples.  3. 
Peter  and  John  go  to  the  sepulchre  and  return.  4.  The  two  disciples, 
having  heard  the  report  of  the  women  and  of  Peter  and  John,  depart 
for  Emmaus.  5.  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other  women  follow  Peter 
and  John  to  the  tomb.  She,  arriving  before  them,  or  following  after 
them,  sees  the  angels  and  afterward  the  Lord.  6.  She  joins  the  other 
women  who  were  near  by.  and,  as  they  are  returning  to  Jerusalem, 
Jesus  meets  them.  7.  He  appears  to  Peter.  8.  He  appears  to  the 
two  at  Emmaus.  Here  Maiy  ]\Iagdulene  alone  fii-st  sees  the  Lord,  and 
afterward  she  sees  Him  the  second  time  in  company  with  others. 

Lange.     1.  The  two  Marys  and  Salome  go  to  the  grave.     Another 
party  —  Joanna  and  others  with  her  —  was  to  follow  with  the  spices 
26* 


610  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR   LORD.  [Part  VTII. 

and  ointments.  The  former  see  the  stone  rolled  away,  and  Mary 
Magdalene  runs  to  find  Peter  and  John.  2.  The  other  Mary  and 
Salome  approach  and  see  one  angel  sitting  upon  the  stone,  and  after- 
ward another  within  the  sepulchre  who  gives  them  a  message,  and 
they  depart.  3.  Peter  and  John  visit  the  sepulchre  and  return.  4. 
Mary  Magdalene  sees  two  angels  and  then  the  Lord.  5.  Jesus  ap- 
pears to  the  other  Mary  and  Salome  on  their  way  to  the  disciples. 
6.  These  two  fall  in  with  Joanna  and  her  party,  and  together  return 
to  the  sepulchre  and  see  two  angels.  7.  He  appears  to  the  two  disci- 
ples. 8.  He  appears  to  Peter.  Here  the  Lord  appears  first  to  Mary 
Magdalene,  then  to  the  other  Mary  and  Salome. 

Bobinson.  1.  The  two  Marys,  Joanna,  and  Salome,  and  others, 
go  to  the  sepulchre  to  embalm  the  body,  and  find  the  stone  rolled 
away.  2.  Mary  Magdalene  runs  to  find  Peter  and  John.  3.  The 
other  women  see  two  angels  in  tlie  tomb,  who  give  them  a  message 
to  the  disciples,  and  they  depart.  4.  Jesus  meets  them  on  the  way 
and  renews  the  message.  5.  Peter  and  John  come  to  the  sepulchre 
and  return  home.  6.  Mary  Magdalene  sees  the  two  angels  and  then 
the  Lord.  7:  Jesus  appears  to  Peter.  8.  He  appears  to  the  two 
going  to  Emniaus.  Here  the  Lord  first  appears  to  the  other  women, 
and  then  to  Mary  Magdalene. 

WestcoU. —  1.  (5  a.  m.)  Mary  Magdalene  with  others  goes  to  the 
sepulchre.  She  leaves  them  and  goes  to  find  Peter  and  John.  2. 
(5.30  A.  M.)  The  other  women  go  to  the  sepulchre,  see  an  angel,  and 
receive  a  message  and  return  to  the  city.  3.  (6  a.  m.)  Another  party 
—  Joanna  and  those  with  her  —  go  to  the  sepulchre  and  see  two 
angels.  4.  (6.30  a.  m.)  Peter  and  John  reach  the  sepulchre  and  re- 
turn. 5.  Mary  Magdalene  returning,  sees  two  angels  and  the  Lord. 
6.  He  appears  to  the  other  women  as  they  are  coming  ^ack  to  the 
sepulchre. 

Gresvvell,  as  has  been  already  observed,  makes  a  second  appear- 
ance to  the  women  —  the  other  Mary  and  Salome  —  but  puts  it  on  the 
following  Sunday,  a  week  later. 

Let  us  now  attempt  to  frame  a  continuous  narrative  from  the 
accounts  of  the  several  Evangelists.  Very  early  in  the  morning 
the  women  from  Galilee  to  the  number  of  five  or  more,  who  had 
been  present  at  the  crucifixion  and  burial,  start  for  the  sepulchre 
to  anoint  the  body,  probably  coming  from  different  parts  of  the 
city,  or  perhaps  from  without  it.  Perhaps  Mary  Magdalene 
alone,  or  with  the  other  Mary  and  Salome,  may  have  a  little  pre- 
ceded the  others.     They  knew,  for  some  at  least  were  eye-wit 


Part  YTII.]    peter  and  john  at  the  tomb.  611 

nesses,  that  a  great  stone  had  been  rolled  to  the  door  of  the  sep- 
ulchre, and  it  was  therefore  a  question  with  them  how  they 
could  roll  it  away.  But  they  did  not  know  of  the  sealing  of  the 
stone  and  the  setting  of  the  watch  which  took  place  after  the 
Sabbath  had  begun.  As  they  approach  the  sepulchre,  they  see 
that  the  stone  is  rolled  away;  and  Mary  Magdalene,  who  natur- 
ally inferred  that  the  Jews  had  removed  the  body,  in  deep  excite- 
ment runs  to  inform  the  two  chief  apostles,  Peter  and  John,  of 
this  fact.  The  other  women  continue  to  approach  the  sepulchre. 
That  the  angel  was  not  now  sitting  upon  the  stone  and  visible  to 
them,  and  that  the  guards  were  not  lying  as  dead  men  before 
the  door,  seem  most  probable,  as  otherwise  their  fears  would 
have  deterred  them  from  advancing.  Seeing  nothing,  they 
enter  the  sepulchre.  An  angel  now  appears  to  them,  and,  after 
bidding  them  not  be  afraid,  shows  them  the  empty  niche  where 
the  body  was  laid,  and  proceeds  to  announce  to  them  that  He  is 
risen,  and  will  meet  the  disciples  in  Galilee,  as  He  had  said  to 
them  while  He  was  with  them.  Greatly  agitated  by  what  they 
had  seen  and  heard,  fear  contending  with  joy,  they  leave  the 
sepulchre  and  return  to  the  city. 

Soon  after  their  departure,  but  how  soon  is  uncertain,  as  we 
do  not  know  where  Mary  Magdalene  found  Peter  and  John,  the 
two  apostles  come  running  with  all  speed  to  determine  the  truth 
of  her  account.  John,  who  reaches  the  tomb  first,  only  looks 
in,  but  Peter  enters,  and  is  followed  by  John.  The  body  is 
gone;  but,  examining  carefully,  they  see  the  grave  clothes  ar- 
ranged in  order,  and  the  napkin  lying  by  itself.  John  is  con- 
vinced by  all  that  he  sees  that  the  Lord  is  indeed  risen ;  but 
Peter  only  marvels.  They  seem  to  have  departed  very  quickly 
again,  perhaps  to  inform  the  other  disciples  that  the  body  was 
truly  gone ;  or  perhaps  they  were  afraid  lest  they  should  be  found 
by  the  Lord's  enemies  at  the  tomb.  Mary  Magdalene,  who  had 
followed  them  back  to  the  sepulchre,  did  not  depart  with  them, 
but  remained  standing  without,  weeping.  It  is  plain  from  the 
whole  narrative  that  she  was  under  the  power  of  the  most  intense 
grief,  believing  that  the  body  of  her  Lord  had  been  borne  away 
by  His  enemies.  While  weeping  she  stoops  down  to  look  in,  as 
if  a  faint  hope  still  lingered  that  she  should  see  Him  there,  and 


612  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR   LORD.  [Part  VIII. 

sees  two  angels  sitting,  one  at  the  head  and  one  at  the  feet,  where 
the  body  had  lain.  Unlike  the  other  women,  who  had  been 
greatly  terrified  at  the  angelic  apparition,  she  seems  scarce  to 
have  noticed  them;  and  to  their  question,  "Woman,  why  weep- 
est  thou  ?  "  she  answers  in  words  showing  how  wholly  her  heart 
was  filled  with  her  one  great  sorrow.  Lifting  her  head,  for  she 
was  now  looking  into  the  tomb,  and  turning  back,  she  sees 
Jesus,  but  does  not  recognize  Him.  He  addresses  her  with  the 
inquiry,  "Woman,  why  weepest  thou?"  Supposing  Him  to  be 
the  gardener,  probably  because  it  was  natural  that  he  should  be 
there,  and  thinking  that  he  might  possibly  have  taken  away  the 
body,  she  addresses  Him  in  words  full  of  passionate  earnestness. 
The  Lord's  reply,  "Mary,"  spoken  in  His  own  familiar  voice, 
recalls  her  to  herself.  She  recognizes  Him,  and,  prostrating  her- 
self, would  hold  Him  by  the  feet  to  worship  Him.  He  forbids 
her  to  touch  Him,  and  gives  her  a  message  to  His  brethren. 
She  departs  and  tells  the  disciples,  but  they  believe  not.  A 
little  after  this,  the  Lord  appears  to  the  two  women  who  had 
been  to  the  city,  and  who  were  probably  accompanied  by  others, 
and  permits  them  to  worship  Him,  and  gives  to  them  a  message. 

Thus  we  find  most  probable  that  there  were  three  visions  of 
angels,  the  first  to  the  two  women,  the  second  to  Mary  Magda- 
lene, the  third  to  the  other  women;  and  two  appearances  of  the 
Lord,  that  to  Mary  Magdalene,  and  that  to  the  other  women 
returning  to  the  tomb ;  all  closely  following  each  other.  As  yet, 
these  supernatural  manifestations  were  vouchsafed  only  to  the 
women.  Peter  and  John  saw  at  the  sepulchre  neither  angels 
nor  the  Lord.  They  found,  indeed,  the  sepulchre  open  and  the 
body  gone;  but  the  fact  that  He  had  risen,  rested  solely  on  the 
testimony  of  the  women.  Perhaps  the  fact  that  He  had  not  ap- 
peared to  any  of  the  apostles,  had  something  to  do  with  the  in- 
credulity of  the  latter,  for  it  was  natural  to  suppose  that  He 
would  first  manifest  Himself  to  them  (Mark  xvi.  11). 

Rumors  that  the  sepulchre  was  empty  must  have  become 
current  among  the  disciples  early  in  the  day,  and  probably  most 
or  all  of  them,  or  at  least  of  the  apostles,  visited  it,  though  we 
have  no  record  of  their  visits. 

The  historical  accuracy  of  the  account  of  the  bribing  of  the 


Part  VIII.]      THE   SOLDIERS   AND  THE  PRIESTS.  613 

sukliers  by  the  chief  priests  and  elders,  has  been  often  questioned,' 
but  on  insufficient  grounds.  The  number  constituting  the  watch 
is  not  mentioned;  some  say  two,  some  four;  the  latter  number 
appeal's  oftenest  in  Art.  The  watch  came  into  the  city,  report- 
ing to  the  chief  priests,  to  whom  they  were  responsible,  what  had 
taken  place  at  the  sepulchre.  The  priests,  who  took  counsel  with 
the  elders,  may  have  believed  this  or  may  not,  but  they  doubtless 
ascertained  to  their  own  satisfaction  that  the  body  was  actually 
gone.  "W  hat  should  they  do  ?  Should  they  report  the  statement 
of  the  soldiers  to  their  commander?  But  to  what  end?  since  all 
the  facts  of  the  affair  must  thus  necessarily  come  to  the  ears  of 
Pilate,  and  become  more  generally  known.  As  it  could  not  be 
concealed  that  the  body  was  gone,  some  plausible  explanation 
must  be  given.  What  could  answer  the  purpose  so  well  as  to 
admit  this  fact,  and  say  that  the  disciples  had  done  what  they 
attempted  to  guard  against  when  they  set  the  watch  —  had 
stolen  away  the  body?  But  this,  if  openly  said,  the  soldiers 
would  naturally  contradict  as  exposing  them  to  military  punish- 
ment, and  the  priests  would  therefore  gently  hint  it  rather  than 
expressly  affirm  it;  and  in  this  way  it  would  spread  among  the 
people  as  a  rumor,  and  gradually  gain  credence.  To  guard 
against  any  denial  on  the  part  of  the  soldiers,  these  must  be 
bribed  to  admit  that  the  story  set  afloat  by  the  priests  was 
true.  They  would  not  affirm  the  absurdity  that  they  knew 
what  the  disciples  were  doing  while  they  were  sleeping;  but 
would  merely  keep  silence  as  to  what  they  had  actually  seen, 
and  not  deny  that  they  might  have  been  asleep,  and  that  the 
theft  of  the  body  might  possibly  have  occurred.  Of  course 
this  report  thus  secretely  circulated  would  soon  become  cur- 
rent, and  by  most  of  the  Jews  be  believed.^  Whether  it  ever 
reached  the  ears  of  Pilate,  we  do  not  know;  probably  he  very 
soon  left  Jerusalem  for  Caesarea,  but  if  it  did,  he  might  be 
bribed  to  pass  their  offense  by  in  silence.  Very  probably,  he 
was  not  much  displeased  at  the  disappearance  of  the  body,  or 
grieved  at  the  discomfiture  of  the  priests  and  Pharisees. 


1  See  Meyer,  in  loco. 

2  See  the  excellent  observations  of  Jones,  Notes,  483. 


614 


THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD. 


[I'art  VIII. 


Luke  xxiv.  33. 
Mark  xvi.  13,  14. 
Luke  xxiv.  34,  35. 
1  Cor.  XV.  5. 


Luke  xxiv.  36-48. 
John  xx.  19-33. 


Sunday,  17th  Nisan,  9th  April,  783.    A.  D.  30. 

Early  in  the  afternoou  two  of  the  disciples  leave  Jeru-  Luke  xxiv.  13-32. 
salem  for  Emmaua.  As  they  go,  Jesus  joins  Himself  to  Mark  xvi.  12. 
them,  and  converses  with  them  till  they  reach  the  village. 
At  their  urgent  request  He  sits  down  to  eat  with  them, 
and  as  He  is  breaking  the  bread,  their  eyes,  which  were 
holden  that  they  should  not  know  Him,  are  opened,  but 
He  immediately  vanishes  out  of  their  sight.  They  return 
at  once  to  Jerusalem,  and  find  the  Eleven  and  others  gath- 
ered together,  who  meet  them  with  the  announcement 
that  the  Lord  is  indeed  risen  and  has  appeared  to  Simon. 
But  the  account  of  the  two  disciples  that  they  had 
also  seen  Him  at  Emmaus,  is  disbelieved.  While  yet 
speaking  together,  Jesus  Himself  stands  in  the  midst  of 
them,  although  the  doors  are  shut,  and  salutes  them.  He 
convinces  them  of  the  reality  of  His  bodily  presence  by 
showing  them  His  hands  and  His  feet,  and  by  eating  be- 
fore them.  He  breathes  upon  them,  and  gives  them  the 
power  to  remit  sins,  and  opens  their  understanding  to 
understand  the  Scriptures. 

The  name  of  one  of  the  disciples  going  to  Emmaus  was 
Cleopas  (Luke  xxiv.  18).  Many  identify  him  with  Cleophas, 
Clopas,  or  Alphseus,  the  husband  of  Mary  (John  xix.  25).  It  is 
most  probable  that  he  was  a  different  person.  (So  Meyer,  Keil.) 
The  name  of  the  other  disciple  is  not  given.  Lightfoot  sup- 
poses him  to  have  been  Peter  himself;  it  was  early  a  very 
common  opinion  that  he  was  Luke,  the  narrative  seeming  to  be 
that  of  one  present,  and  that  the  Evangelist  through  modesty 
did  not  mention  his  own  name.  Wieseler  (431),  who  makes 
Cleopas  to  have  been  Alphseus,  makes  the  other  the  apostle 
James,  his  son  ;  and  this  the  appearance  mentioned  by  St.  Paul 
(1  Cor.  XV.  7).  Another  early  tradition  calls  him  Simon.  It  was 
formerly  said  by  some  that  the  two  mentioned  in  Mark  xvi.  12, 
whose  names  are  not  given,  were  different  persons,  but  this  is 
not  now  held  by  any. 

The  place  to  which  the  two  went  was  Emmaus.  Josephus 
mentions  three  places  of  this  name;  one  on  the  Lake  of  Gali- 
lee near  Tiberias  (War,  iv.  1.  3),  another  sixty  furlongs  from 
Jerusalem,  where  eight  hundred  Roman  soldiers  were  colonized 
(War,  vii.  6.  6);  and  still  another,  a  city  mentioned  in  connec- 
tion with  Goiduia  (Antiq.,  xiv.  11.  2;  War,  iii.  3.  5),  and  after- 


Part  VIII.]  POSITION   OF   EMMAUS.  G15 

wards  known  as  Enimaus  Nicopolis.  (See  "Winer,  ii.  325.)  The 
distance  he  gives  of  the  second  of  these  places  from  Jerusalem 
coincides  exactly  with  that  of  Luke  (xxiv.  13).  But  there  is 
some  question  as  to  the  right  reading  in  Josephus,  whether 
thirty  or  sixty  stadia;  the  last  is  generally  accepted.  (See  T. 
G.  Lex.,  suh  voce.) 

We  have  three  data  in  Luke  for  identifying  Emmaus  —  its 
name,  its  distance  from  Jerusalem,  and  its  designation  as  "a 
village  "  —  K(x)fir].  The  name  is  defined  by  Josephus  (War,  iv. 
1.  3),  speaking  of  the  town  near  Tiberias  as  "signifying  warm 
water  —  depfxa  —  the  name  being  derived  from  a  warm  spring 
which  rises  there,  possessing  sanative  properties."  This  warm 
spring  still  exists,  and  is  the  same  mentioned  in  Joshua  (xix.  35), 
and  called  Hammath.  But  it  does  not  appear  that  there  were 
ever  any  warm  springs  at  the  other  two  places  spoken  of  by 
Josephus.  The  name  Emmaus,  therefore,  does  not  of  itself  show 
that  there  were  hot  springs  at  each  place  so  called;  it  might  be 
given  to  a  place  where  were  springs  affording  water  for  baths, 
whether  cold  or  artificially  heated.  That  the  Emmaus  Nicopolis 
of  Josephiis  had  any  hot  spring  does  not  appear,  though  there 
was  one  there  with  medicinal  properties  (in  T.  G.  Lex.,  erro- 
neously said  "noted  for  its  hot  springs";  Lightfoot,  x.  298; 
Hamburger,  ii.  172;  for  present  conditions  Baedeker,  138). 
Nor  are  there  now  hot  springs  anywhere  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Jerusalem,  or  indeed,  in  Judaea,  whatever  may  have  been  the 
case  formerly.  Baths,  warm  and  cold,  were  found  in  all  the  large 
cities.  We  may,  therefore,  conclude  that  the  name  Emmaus 
was  sometimes  applied  to  places  where  were  springs,  hot  or  cold, 
and  with  or  without  baths.  Thus  the  name  gives  only  this 
much  of  positive  result,  that  the  Emmaus  which  we  seek  must 
have  been  at  some  place  where  were  springs  and  an  abundance 
of  water,  and  probably  baths. 

The  second  datum  is  its  distance  from  Jerusalem  —  sixty 
furlongs.  The  oldest  and  most  prominent  claimant  is  Emmaus 
Nicopolis,  which  lies  in  the  plain  of  Judah  about  twenty  miles 
west  from  Jerusalem,  a  village  a  little  to  the  left  of  the  road 
from  Ramleh,  and  now  called  Amwas  (Rob.  ii.  265  and  iii.  347). 
The  claim  is  supported  by  Robinson,  mainly  on  the  ground  tiiat 


616  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD,  [Part  VIll. 

it  is  the  traditional  site:  "For  thirteen  centuries  did  the  inter- 
pretation current  in  the  whole  Church  regard  the  Emniaus  of 
the  New  Testament  as  identical  with  Nicopolis."  But  tradition, 
to  which  Robinson  is  not  usually  so  deferential,  cannot  over- 
come the  intrinsic  difficulties  lying  in  its  remoteness  from  Jeru- 
salem. To  do  this,  he  must  deny  the  genuineness  of  the  received 
reading  in  Luke  of  sixty  furlongs,  and  maintain  that  the  read- 
ing found  in  some  manuscripts  of  one  hundred  and  sixty  fur- 
longs, is  the  true  one.  This  correction  of  the  text  is  accepted 
by  few.  But  if  we  accept  it,  it  would  take  some  five  or  six  hours 
to  go  from  Jerusalem  to  Emmaus,  and  if  the  two  disciples  left 
the  city  at  twelve  m.,  they  would  not  have  reached  the  village 
till  near  six  p.  m.  Allowing  that  only  a  very  brief  time  was 
spent  in  preparation  for  the  evening  meal,  and  that  after  it  they 
returned  with  all  haste,  they  could  not  have  reached  Jerusalem 
till  near  midnight.  Considering  the  habits  of  the  Orientals,  it 
is  very  improbable  that  on  their  return  they  found  the  disciples 
assembled  together  at  that  hour,  nor  is  it  likely  that  the  Lord 
would  have  chosen  it  to  make  His  first  appearance  to  them. 
We  have,  moreover,  some  marks  of  the  time  when  the  two  met 
the  disciples.  Mark  (xvi.  14)  says:  "  He  appeared  unto  the 
Eleven  as  they  sat  at  meat."  John  (xx.  19)  says  that  when  He 
appeared  to  the  Eleven  it  was  evening  —  oipia  —  and  this  was 
probably  "the  first  evening,"  which  began  at  three  p.m.  and 
ended  at  sunset.  As  the  sun  at  this  season  set  soon  after  six 
o'clock,  and  there  is  but  a  short  twilight,  the  two  from  Emmaus, , 
on  arriving  at  Jerusalem,  probably  found  the  disciples  at  their' 
evening  meal,  or  soon  after  it.  All  this  shows  that  the  two 
must  have  reached  Jerusalem  at  least  early  in  the  evening,  and 
that  Emmaus  must  have  been  within  easy  reach  of  the  city. 

The  third  datum  is  the  designation  by  Luke  of  Emmaus  as 
a  "village";  but  Emmaus  Nicopolis  was  "a  city,"  a  large  and 
important  place,  not  a  village. 

Upon  these  grounds,  we  must  believe  that  the  Emmaus  of 
Luke  cannot  be  placed  at  a  greater  distance  than  he  has  placed 
it  —  sixty  furlongs,  and  was  not  Emmaus  N.  Robinson  himself 
was  earher  of  this  opinion  (Bib.  Sacra.,  1845,  181),  and  said  that 
the  distance  of   Emmaus  Nicopolis  was  too  great  for  the  dis- 


Part  VI II.]  POSITION   OF   EMMAUS,  617 

ciples  to  have  returned  the  same  evening,  and  conchided:  "We 
must  therefore  abide  by  the  usual  reading."  (See  the  note  in 
Bonar's  "  Land  of  Promise,"  Index,  537.  Most  reject  the  claims 
of  Emmaus  Nicopolis,  Meyer,  Godet,  Keil,  Edersheim.) 

Setting  aside  Emmaus  Nicopolis,  there  are  three  other  places 
which  have  their  advocates.  The  first  of  these  is  a  village  called 
El  Kubeibeh,  lying  northwest  from  Jerusalem,  and  on  the  road 
to  Lydda.  Its  distance  from  the  city,  as  measured  by  the  Ger- 
man architect  Schick,  is  very  nearly  sixty  furlongs,  though 
others  make  it  a  little  more.  It  has  in  its  favor  a  tradition  dat- 
ing from  the  crusades,  or  perhaps  earlier.  Baedeker  (142) 
speaks  of  it  as  having  many  ruins,  and  a  beautiful  situation. 
.  There  is  a  fountain,  but  not  very  copious,  and  no  traces  of  any 
baths.  But  Robinson  finds  no  tradition  earlier  than  the  four- 
teenth century,  and  denies  that  there  are  any  grounds  in  its 
favor  but  its  distance  from  Jerusalem. 

The  second  is  Kulonieh,  a  village  a  little  northwest  of  Jerusa- 
lem on  the  road  to  Joppa.  Its  name  is  derived  by  some  from  the 
Latin  Colonia.  If  this  be  the  derivation,  it  answers  to  the  state- 
ment of  Josephus  respecting  the  colonization  at  Emmaus  of  the 
Roman  soldiers.  The  distance,  however,  does  not  correspond 
with  Luke's  statement,  for  it  is  less  than  sixty  furlongs  from  Jeru- 
salem. (Edersheim,  ii.  638,  says  forty-five  furlongs;  Conder,  Qt. 
St.,  1885,  348,  only  thirty-five  furlongs.)  A  good  spring  is 
found  there,  and  it  was,  and  still  is,  a  place  of  pleasure  resort 
for  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.  Some  advocates  of  this  site 
connect  it  with  a  Motsa  mentioned  in  the  Talmud  and  identified 
with  Kulonieh,  whence  willows  were  brought  to  Jerusalem  for 
the  feast  of  Tabernacles.  (So  Caspari,  242;  Conder,  Tentwork, 
25.)  Edersheim  (ii.  639)  rejects  this  on  the  ground  that  Kulon- 
ieh was  northwest  of  Jerusalem,  while  Motsa  was  south  of  it. 
He  accepts  a  view  presented  in  Qt.  St.,  (1881,  237)  that  puts 
Emmaus  between  Kulonieh  and  Kubeibeh.  "  Between  these 
places  is  Beit  Mizza,  or  Hammoza,  which  I  regard  as  the  real 
Emmaus.  It  would  be  nearly  fifty-five  or  about  sixty  furlongs, 
sufficiently  near  to  Kolonieh  (Colonia)  to  account  for  the  name, 
since  the  colony  would  extend  up  the  valley,  and  sufficiently  near 
to  Kubeibeh  to  account  for  the  tradition,  that  this  was  the  Em- 


618  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VlII. 

raaus  ol  the  crusaders."  (See  Qt.  St.,  1881,  274,  and  1884,  247. 
In  favor  of  identifying  Kulonieh  with  Emmaus,  Sepp,  Caspari, 
Woolf  in  Riehm,  Henderson,  Oosterzee,  Godet;  contra,  Rob.  iii. 
158.) 

A  third  claimant  is  found  in  Khamasa,  where  some  ruins 
were  found  by  Capt.  Conder,  not  far  from  the  Roman  road 
which  passes  by  Solomon's  pools  south  of  Jerusalem.  .  "  Ancient 
rock-cut  sepulchres  and  a  causeway  mark  the  site  as  being  one 
of  considerable  antiquity,  and  its  vicinity  is  still  remarkable  for 
its  fine  supply  of  spring  water"  (Qt.  St.,  1879,  107).  Khamasa 
is  eight  miles  southwest  of  Jerusalem  according  to  Conder,  but 
others  make  the  distance  nine  to  ten  miles.  As  this  identifica- 
tion is  said  to  be  given  up  by  Conder  who  first  presented  it,  it 
need  not  be  further  discussed.  (But  it  still  appears  in  his  "  Hand 
Book,"   1882.) 

There  is  still  another  claimant  in  Urtas,  a  valley  a  little  east- 
ward of  the  main  road  from  Bethlehem  to  Hebron,  and  about 
a  mile  from  the  pools  of  Solomon  at  El  Burak,  and  probably 
the  Etam  of  the  Old  Testament.  (Rob.,  iii.  273.)  Its  claims 
were  first  presented  by  Mrs.  Finn  (Qt.  St.,  1883,  53),  who  for 
ten  years  had  made  diligent  personal  search  all  around  Jerusa- 
lem to  find  the  true  Emmaus.  Its  claims  rest  upon  its  distance 
from  Jerusalem,  about  sixty  furlongs;  the  existence  there  of 
Roman  baths ;  and  its  name  of  Latin  origin  —  Urtas  —  a  corrup- 
tion of  horius,  a  garden;  all  these  pointing  to  its  identification 
with  the  second  Emmaus  of  Josephus.  It  has  a  large  and  noble 
fountain,  and  by  this  the  valley  is  watered  and  not  from  Solo- 
mon's pools.  Tristram  (B.  P.,  70)  says:  "The  valley  is  now  a 
blooming  garden,  and  many  most  interesting  proofs  of  its  wealth 
have  been  exhumed,  especially  a  beautiful  set  of  marble  baths 
built  after  the  Jewish  fashion,  with  rich  carving  in  the  Egyptian 
style."  These  Mrs.  Finn  supposes  to  have  been  Roman  baths, 
and  to  point  to  a  residence  there  of  the  discharged  Roman  sol- 
diers mentioned  by  Josephus.  Here  is  plenty  of  water,  and  re- 
mains of  baths,  such  as  are  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  vicinity 
of  Jerusalem.  The  Arabic  name  Hammam,  which,  according  to 
Conder,  is  used  of  any  bath,  hot  or  cold,  was  applied  to  these 
remains   by   the  natives,    and  would  well  answer  to  the  name 


Part  Vlll.]  RECOGNITION   OF   THE   LORD.  619 

Emmaus.  But  that  this  name  was  the  old  one,  and  that  it  was 
later  changed  by  the  Roman  soldiers  from  Emmaus  to  Hortus 
and  corrupted  into  Urtas,  is  only  a  probable  conjecture. 

As  the  evidence  now  is,  the  choice  seems  to  lie  between  Kubei- 
beh  and  Urtas.  Both  would  satisfy  the  conditions  as  to  distance, 
and  both  have  springs.  In  favor  of  Kubeibeh  is  a  tradition, 
though  of  late  date,  and  its  proximity  to  Kulonieh ;  in  favor  of 
Urtas,  its  name,  and  its  baths,  and  the  possible  remains  of  an 
old  fortification.  The  question  can  be  settled  only  by  further 
local  examination,  and  we  must  for  the  present  regard  the  site 
of  Emmaus  as  an  unsolved  problem. 

The  time  when  the  two  disciples  left  Jerusalem  is  not  mentioned, 
but  it  was  probably  about  noon  or  soon  after.  At  the  time  of  their 
departure  they  had  heard  of  the  appearance  of  the  angels  to  the 
women,  and  of  the  visit  of  Peter  and  John  to  the  sepulchre,  but  not 
of  any  appearance  of  the  Lord  (Luke  xxiv.  23-24).  As  the  distance 
was  only  some  eight  miles,  they  may  have  reached  Emmaus  a  good 
while  before  sundown,  but  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  Lord  gave 
them  much  instruction  by  the  way  (verse  27),  making  it  probable  that 
they  went  slowly. 

When  the  Lord  met  the  two.  He  was  not  recognized  by  them. 
Luke  says  (verse  16) :  "  Their  eyes  were  holden  that  they  should  not 
know  Him."  This  some  have  t[iought  discrepant  with  Mark's  state- 
ment (xvi.  13)  that  "He  appeared  in  another  form  —  iv  hipq.  iwptprt 
—  unto  two  of  them."  The  latter  expression  may  refer  to  His  previ- 
ous appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene  by  whom  He  had  been  mistaken 
for  the  gardener,'  or  to  another  form  than  that  before  the  resurrection. 
That  His  bodily  aspect  was  in  many  points  after  the  resurrection  un- 
like what  it  had  been  before,  we  cannot  doubt,  though  it  is  impossi- 
ble for  us  to  tell  wherein  those  distinctions  consisted.  (See  John 
xxi.  4.)  Still  the  language  of  Luke  implies  that  there  was  no  such 
change  as  to  forbid  His  recognition;  and  that,  in  this  case,  except  the 
eyes  of  the  disciples  had  been  specially  holden,  they  would  have 
known  Him.  As  said  by  Alexander:  "Luke  gives  the  cause,  Mark 
the  effect."  "  Their  eyes  were  opened  and  they  knew  Him,  and  He 
vanished  out  of  their  sight  "  (Luke  xxiv.  3 1).''  Rising  up  the  same  hour, 


1  So  Lardner. 

2  The  explanation  of  the  faihiie  of  the  disciples  to  recognize  the  Lord  during  the 
forty  days,  would  demand  an  enquiry  into  the  nature  of  the  resurrection  body  which 
would  be  foreign  to  our  purpose.  But  the  explanation  which  assumes  a  process  of  bodily 
glorification,  and  so  a  progressive  change  of  appearance  (Meyer,  Godet,  Edursheini),  has 


620  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIIL 

they  returned  to  Jerusalem,  reaching  it  probably  early  in  the  evening, 
joy  ft  again  beholding  their  Lord  adding  wings  to  their  feet,  and  find 
the  Eleven '  as  they  sat  at  meat.  The  place  where  the  apostles  were 
assembled  was  in  all  probability  the  same  in  which  they  had  eaten  the 
paschal  supper,  and  to  which  they  returned  from  the  Mount  of  Olives 
after  the  Ascensiou. 

Fird  appearance  of  the  Eleven.  Before  we  consider  the  memora- 
ble events  of  this  evening,  some  preliminary  points  must  be  discussed. 
Is  this  appearance  to  the  Eleven,  as  narrated  in  Luke,  the  same  as 
that  in  .John  xx.  19  and  in  Mark  xvi.  14?  This  is  generally  held, 
but  it  will  be  well  to  examine  each  account  and  compare  them. 

It  is  plain  from  John's  words :  "  Then  the  same  day  at  evening, 
being  the  first  day  of  the  week,  .  .  .  came  .Jesus,"  etc.,  that  this 
was  the  Easter  evening.  Luke's  statements  of  the  time  are  equally 
clear.  But  Mark's  designation  of  time  (xvi.  14)  is  wholly  indefinite, 
"  Afterward  —  Iffrepov  —  He  appeared  unto  the  Eleven."  Some,  there- 
fore, refer  this  statement  to  the  second  appearance  to  the  Eleven 
(John  XX.  26) ;  others  hold  that  Mark  sums  up  in  a  general  way  the 
events  which  John  distinguishes  as  on  two  successive  Sundays.  Two 
circumstances,  however,  in  Mark's  narrative  give  a  note  of  the  time; 
one,  that  they  "sat  at  meat,"  the  meal  being  then  probably  over. 
John  does  not  mention  this  circumstance,  nor  Luke,  though  it  is  im- 
plied in  the  Lord's  question,  "Have  ye  here  any  meat?  "  Another 
note  of  time  is  the  Lord's  reproof  which,  as  we  shall  see,  fits  better 
to  the  first  than  to  the  second  appearance,  a  week  later.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  there  are  some  discrepancies  between  Mark  and  Luke  as 
to  the  reception  of  the  testimony  of  the  two  disciples  from  Emmaus. 
Mark  says  (verse  13) :   "  And  they  went  and  told  it  unto  the  residue, 


very  little  in  its  favor.  If  this  means,  as  it  seems  to  do,  that  the  material  body  of  the 
resurrection  gradually  lost  its  material  element,  and  became  at  last  a  spiritual,  i.  e.  imma- 
terial bod)',  this  is  contrary  to  all  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  The  common  belief  is 
expressed  by  Leo:  Re^nrrectio  Domini  non  finis  carnis,  sed  connuntatio  /'(it,  nee  vir- 
tutis  augmenio  consumpla  substantia  est.  Wholly  without  any  ground  in  the  narratives 
is  Godet's  attempt  to  explain  the  Lord's  sudden  disappearance  from  Ihe  two  at  Emmaus 
—  "  He  vanished  out  of  their  sight"  —  by  saying  that  the  body  was  now  partially  glori- 
fied, and  so  "  obeyed  more  freely  than  before  the  will  of  the  spirit."  The  ground  taken  by 
some,  as  Rothe,  that  the  Lord's  body  at  the  resurrection  had  no  material  element,  and 
that  from  time  to  time,  in  order  to  manifest  Himself,  lie  took  a  body  as  a  man  might 
put  on  a  garment,  need  only  be  mentioned.  (Nebe,  Auferstehungsgeschichte,  136.) 
The  assumption  that  His  glorified  body  as  such,  was  invisible,  cannot  be  granted.  (2 
Peter  i.  16:  "We-were  eye  witnesses  of  His  majesty.")  But  it  maybe  .said  as  in  the 
Speaker's  Com. :  "  Recognition,  in  all  cases  of  appearance  between  the  resurrection  and 
the  ascension,  depended  on  the  spiritual  stjite  of  the  witnesses  and  upon  His  own  will." 

1  Strictly  speaking,  only  ton  of  the  apostles  were  there.    It  is  a  fancy  of  Caspari's 
that  Matthew  was  not  present,  having  already  gone  into  Galilee. 


Fart  VIIL]  DISBELIEF  OF  THE  ELEVEN.  621 

neither  believed  they  them."  Luke  says  (verses  33-35)  that,  when 
the  two  found  the  apostles,  they  were  met  with  the  joyful  cry:  "The 
Lord  is  risen  indeed,  and  hath  appeared  to  Simon."  These  words 
seem  to  declare  their  firm  belief  that  He  had  risen. 

But  before  considering  this  supposed  disagreement  between  Mark 
and  Luke,  we  must  ask  how  is  this  statement  in  Luke  to  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  statement  immediately  following,  that,  when  Jesus 
actually  stood  in  the  midst  of  them  and  spake  to  them,  "  they  were 
terrified  and  affrighted,  and  supposed  that  they  had  seen  a  spirit?" 
It  is  not  surprising  that  in  their  agitated  state  of  mind  they  should  at 
one  moment  have  believed,  and  at  another  have  disbelieved.  As  said 
by  Bengel :  Credebant  sed  mox  recurrehat  suspicio  et  ipsa  increduUtfis. 
Here  two  circumstances  are  to  be  taken  into  account:  first,  that  when 
the  Lord  met  the  two  disciples  on  their  way,  there  was  nothing  in  His 
appearance  or  manner  to  suggest  a  supernatural  person.  He  was  a 
man  like  themselves,  an  ordinary  traveller ;  and  it  was  not  till  after  a 
long  conversation  that  they  knew  Him  in  the  breaking  of  bread. 
But  His  appearance  to  the  Eleven  was  sudden;  the  doors  were 
closed.  How  found  He  admittance?  When  He  earlier  appeared  to  the 
apostles  walking  upon  the  sea  in  the  night  (Matt.  xiv.  25,  26),  "they 
were  troubled,  saying.  It  is  a  spirit,  and  they  cried  out  for  fear." 
It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  now  sudden  doubts  should  arise 
in  their  hearts  as  to  the  reality  of  His  resurrection.  Did  they  indeed 
see  Him  or  only  His  ghost? 

Another  circumstance  is  to  be  taken  into  account.  The  two  dis 
ciples  reported  that  He  had  been  with  them  on  their  walk  to  Em- 
maus,  perhaps  joining  them  soon  after  leaving  Jerusalem,  and  leaving 
them  only  at  evening,  and  yet  He  had  also  been  seen  by  Peter  in  the 
city.  Here  were  seemingly  contradictory  accounts.  Ignorant  of  the 
properties  of  His  resurrection  body,  and  the  power  of  sudden  transi- 
tion from  place  to  place,  they  might  say  that  if  He  was  with  the  two 
at  Emmaus  at  the  time  they  said.  He  could  not  have  appeared  to 
Peter  in  Jerusalem,  and  that  the  appearances,  therefore,  were  not  true 
bodily  appearances,  but  phantasmal. 

We  do  not,  then,  find  anything  inconsistent  in  the  two  statements 
of  Luke.  The  events  of  the  day  had  convinced  all  the  disciples 
that  the  Lord  had  left  the  sepulchre,  and  was  near  them  in  some 
form,  nor  did  they  question  Peter's  witness;  but  had  He  really  risen, 
or,  were  they  now  seeing  an  apparition?  It  was  to  convince  them  of 
the  reality  of  His  resurrection  that  He  said  to  them:  "Handle  me 
and  see,"  and  afterward  called  for  food  and  ate  before  them. 

Returning  now  to  the  statement  of  Murk   (xvi.  13)  that  the  two 


622  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIII 

disciples  told  of  the  Lord's  appearance  to  them  "unto  the  residue, 
neither  believed  they  them";  it  is  in  question  whether  in  "the  resi- 
due "  the  apostles  are  included.  Jones  denies  this,  but  most  include 
them.  If  so,  the  unbelief  and  hardness  of  heart  in  Mark  which  the 
Lord  reproved,  are  the  same  as  the  doubts  and  fears  in  Luke;  the 
accounts  are  consistent. 

We  may  here  ask  in  what  chronological  relations  did  the  appear- 
ance to  Simon  Peter  (Luke  xxiv.  34)  stand  to  that  to  the  two  dis- 
ciples? Someplace  it  before  (so  Jones,  Godet);  some  after  (Eders., 
McClel.,  Rob.,  and  most).  It  was  most  probably  a  little  after  the  two 
left  Emmaus  on  their  return,  as  it  was  generally  known  to  the  disci- 
ples when  they  reached  the  city.  Some  have  connected  this  appear- 
ance to  Peter  with  a  second  visit  to  the  sepulchre  (Luke  xxiv.  12), 
following  the  tidings  of  Mary  Magdalene  that  she  had  seen  the  Lord 
in  the  garden ;  and  if  Peter  saw  Him  at  this  time,  it  was  before 
He  appeared  to  the  two.  But  there  are  two  questions  here;  the  first 
as  to  the  text.  Tischeudorf  omits  verse  12,  W.  and  H.  bracket  it; 
but  otliers,  Godet,  Meyer,  Keil,  would  retain  it,  and  it  is  kept  in  R. 
V.  But  accepting  it,  does  it  show  that  Peter  went  a  second  time 
alone  to  the  tomb,  or  is  it  a  summary  mention  of  the  earlier  visit  of 
Peter  and  John?  The  last  seems  most  probable,  and  is  most  in  har- 
mony with  the  generality  of  the  language  in  the  account  preceding. 

Turning  to  the  account  in  John  (xx.  19),  we  find  it  in  some  points 
like  that  in  Luke,  but  in  some,  unlike.  They  have  in  common  the 
proof  that  the  Lord  gave  of  His  real  bodily  presence,  by  showing 
the  disciples  His  hands  and  His  side,'  but  John  omits  the  eating  be- 
fore them.  Luke  does  not  speak  of  the  shut  door,  but  implies  it  in 
the  fear  that  fell  on  them  when  they  saw  Him  standing  among  them. 
John  says  that  the  disciples  were  glad  when  they  saw  the  Lord,  but 
this  must  refer  to  the  time  when  He  had  convinced  them  that  it  was 
He  Himself,  not  a  spectre.  But  all  do  not  identify  the  account  in 
Luke  with  that  in  John  as  the  appearance  of  the  Lord  on  Easter 
evening;  some  saying  that  he  has  generalized  the  accounts  of  John, 
embracing  the  first  and  second  appearances;  and  others,  that  he 
speaks  of  the  second  meeting  only  (John  xx.  26).  The  last  is 
maintained  in  the  Speaker's  Commentary.  The  grounds  of  this  will 
be  considered  in  speaking  of  the  ascension. 

What  is  peculiar  to  John  is  the  renewed  commission  to  His  apos- 
tles, the  imparting  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  authority  to  remit  and 
retain  sins.     Of  this  act  of  the  Lord,  and  of  the  accompanying  words 


1  In  Luke  xxiv.,  verse  40  is  oinitted  by  Tisch.  and  bracketed  by  W.  and  H,,  but 
its  omission  is  of  no  importance  as  to  the  point  before  us. 


Part  VIII.]    SIGNIFICANCE  OF  HIS  FIRST  APPEARANCE.     623 

in  their  theological  bearing,  we  are  not  called  to  speak,  but  they  are 
of  importance  to  us  as  a  renewal  of  the  apostolic  commission.  As  in 
His  last  prayer  (John  xvii.  18),  He  said  of  the  apostles:  "As  Thou 
hast  sent  Me  into  the  world,  even  so  have  I  also  sent  them  into  the 
world,"  so  here  addressing  them  He  says:  "As  my  Father  hath  sent 
Me,  even  so  send  I  you."  Thus  they  learned  that  His  death  and 
resurrection  made  no  change  in  their  official  relation  to  Him;  that 
they  were  still  His  apostles,  and  with  a  new  commission,  and  a  min- 
istry yet  to  be  fulfilled.  To  fulfill  this  ministry  they  must  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  significance  of  His  breathing  upon  them,  whether 
as  a  means  for  the  giving  of  the  Spirit,  or  as  significant  of  His  new 
life  and  a  proof  of  His  resurrection,  belongs  to  the  commentators. 
The  power  to  remit  and  to  retain  sins  clearly  looked  forward  to  a 
holy  church,  and  implied  such  close  communion  with  Him,  though 
absent,  that  their  acts  were  truly  His  acts. 

We  may  here  sum  up  the  significance  of  these  several  appearances 
on  the  day  of  the  resurrection. 

The  fact  that  the  Lord  was  risen  was  shown  by  the  empty  sepul- 
chre, and  by  the  word  of  the  angels:  "He  is  not  here;  for  He  is 
risen,  as  he  said.  Come,  see  the  place  where  the  Lord  lay."  But 
into  what  condition  of  being  had  He  entered  ?  Was  His  body  real  or 
only  phantasmal  ?  What  were  His  relations  to  His  disciples  ?  What 
was  He  about  to  do  ?  All  was  in  their  minds  vague,  confused,  uncer- 
tain. His  first  step  therefore  was  to  convince  them  that  His  resur- 
rection was  but  a  new  form  of  His  manhood.  He  was  the  same  Jesus; 
His  old  relations  to  them  were  unchanged.  His  work  was  to  go  on, 
the  apostles  were  to  continue  to  be  His  helpers,  the  continuity  of  His 
Person  and  of  His  work  was  unbroken. 

It  is  from  this  [)oint  of  view  that  His  words  and  acts  on  Easter 
Sunday  are  to  be  regarded.  All  tended  to  establish  such  community 
between  the  Lord  as  the  First  born  from  the  dead  and  the  disciples 
that  they  should  see  in  Him  the  same  Teacher  and  Master  as  of  old, — 
One  who,  thougli  risen,  was  still  carrying  on  the  work  He  had  begun 
before  His  death,  and  who  would  fulfill  all  His  promises  to  them. 
Thus  by  degrees  the  resurrection  was  seen  to  be  only  a  new  step  in 
the  one  purpose  of  redemption,  and  with  joy,  not  with  fear,  should 
they  wait  in  Galilee  for  His  appearing. 

Sunday,  24th  Nisan,  16th  April,  783.      A.  D.  30. 

After  eight  days  Jesus  again  appears  to  the  assembled    John  xx.  26-29. 
apostles,  Thomas,  who  had  been  before  absent,  now  being 
with  them.    By  showing  him  the  prints  of  the  nails  and  of 
the  spear,  as  he  has  demanded,  and  desiring  him  to  touch    John  xx.  24,  25. 


624  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD.  [Part  VIIL 

them,  the  Lord  convinces  him  of  the  reality  of  His  resur- 
rection; and  Thomas  acknowledges  Him  as  his  Lord  and 
his  God. 

A  week  passed  away,  and  the  apostles  were  still  lingering  in 
Jerusalem.  Why  was  this?  Some  say,  because  they  were 
waiting  for  the  expiration  of  the  paschal  feast,  which  lasted  seven 
days.  But  Lightfoot  says,  that  although  on  the  first  day  no  one 
was  permitted  to  exceed  the  limits  of  a  Sabbath  day's  journey, 
and  on  the  second,  no  one  might  go  home  because  of  "  the  ap- 
pearance before  the  Lord,"  which  then  took  place,  yet  on  the 
third,  one  might  go  if  necessary.  It  is  said  by  Stier  that  the  Lord's 
direction  to  go  to  Galilee  presupposed  their  tarrying  through 
the  feast.  This  is  not  at  all  probable;  but  even  if  so,  the 
feast  was  now  ended,  yet  they  remained.  The  cause  of  then- 
delay  to  go  to  Galilee  was  probably  the  unbelief  of  Thomas, 
who  was  not  present  at  the  Lord's  first  appearing,  and  who 
refused  to  believe  the  testimony  of  others,  and  demanded  the 
proof  of  both  sight  and  touch.  Possibly  there  were  others  of 
the  disciples  yet  in  doubt,  and  unwilling  to  leave  the  city,  but 
probably  most  of  those  from  Galilee  had  gone  back  to  their 
homes. 

How  the  apostles  spent  the  week,  we  are  not  told ;  but  probably 
they  often  visited  the  garden,  and  may  have  assembled  every  evening 
in  the  accustomed  place  in  the  hope  that  He  would  appear  again  to 
them.  But  why  did  not  those  who  believed  go  to  Galilee?  Because 
they  had  now  learned  that  their  witness  to  the  Lord's  resurrection 
and  their  work  for  Him  must  be  done  by  them  as  one  body,  as  an 
apostolic  college,  and  they  must,  therefore,  continue  together.  If 
Thomas  was  still  unbelieving,  thus  preventing  any  united  action,  they 
must  wait  the  Lord's  further  direction  before  taking  any  new  step. 
It  thus  became  necessary  that  He  should  manifest  Himself  again  to 
the  assembled  apostles  at  Jerusalem,  that  Thomas  might  be  convinced 
and  the  apostolic  unity  be  maintained.     (See  Edersheim,  ii.  646.) 

The  place  where  the  Lord  met  the  Eleven  was  in  all  probability 
the  same  where  He  met  them  before,  and  this  is  generally  accepted.' 
The  hour  was  doubtless  also  in  the  evening,  though  this  is  not  said. 
He  suddenly  appeared  among  them,  the  door  being  shut  as  before, 
and  renewed  the  salutation:   "  Peace  be  unto  you." 


'  Caspar!  is  an  exception.  According  to  him  the  apostles  left  Jerusalem  for  Galv 
lee  immediately  after  the  paschal  season,  and  this  manifestation  took  place  at  Capernaum 
or  Bethsaida,  and  is  the  same  as  that  mentioaed  by  Mark  xvi.  14, 15, 


JPart  VI II.]  THE  LORD  SEEN  BY  THOMAS.  625 

Thomas  was  now  with  them.  Why  he  was  not  present  at  their  first 
meeting,  we  are  not  told ;  most  say  that,  being  naturally  skeptical,  he 
disbelieved  the  reports  of  the  other  disciples.  This  may  be,  but  that 
he  was  not  wanting  in  love  or  courage  is  shown  in  the  matter  of  Laz- 
arus (John  xi.  16).  The  proof  which  the  Lord  gave  him  that  it  was 
He  Himself  now  standing  among  them,  was  of  the  character  that  He 
had  before  given  the  ten  —  the  evidence  of  his  senses.  Whether 
Thomas  actually  put  his  finger  into  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  his 
hand  into  His  side,  is  in  question.  It  was  affirmed  by  Calvin  and 
others,  and  apparently  by  EUicott  (403,  note),  but  most  deny  it.  (So 
Meyer,  Luthardt,  Edersheim;  see  Nebe,  Auferstehungsgeschichte, 
228.)  It  is  said  by  Hengstenberg  that  it  w^as  the  Lord's  knowledge 
of  Thomas's  words  and  their  repetition  (verse  27),  which  was  the  con- 
vincing proof  to  him  that  the  Lord  was  really  before  him ;  others 
more  probably  ascribe  his  conviction  to  the  impression  which  the 
Lord's  whole  appearance  made  upon  him.  The  words  of  reproof 
addressed  to  Thomas:  "Because  thou  hast  seen  Me  thou  hast  be- 
lieved," were  in  their  measure  applicable  to  the  other  apostles,  for 
they  had  refused  at  first  to  listen  to  the  testimony  of  the  women,  and 
were  not  convinced  of  the  reality  of  His  resurrection  till  He  gave 
them  sensible  evidence. 

The  point  whether  the  appearance  to  the  Twelve  mentioned  by 
Paul  (1  Cor.  XV.  5)  was  either  of  those  already  spoken  of,  or  that 
upon  the  day  of  His  ascension,  will  soon  be  considered.  This  was  the 
sixth  and  last  of  the  earlier  Judaean  appearances.  The  apostles  now 
go  to  Galilee  to  meet  their  Lord  there. 

April— May,  783.     A.D.  30. 

The  apostles  having  returned  to  Galilee,  the  Lord 
appears  to  some  of  them  while  engaged  in  fishing  upon  John  xxi.  1-23. 
the  lake.  The  miracle  of  the  great  draught  of  fishes  is 
repeated,  and  He  feeds  the  seven  with  fish  and  bread. 
After  they  have  eaten,  He  commands  Peter  three  times 
to  feed  His  sheep,  and  signifies  his  future  death  and  the 
protracted  life  of  John. 

After  this,  He  appears  upon  a  mountain  to  a  great    Matt,  xxviii.  16-20. 
body  of  disciples,  and  commands  that  the  Gospel  be    1  Cok.  xv.  6. 
preached  and  disciples  baptized  throughout  the  world.     Makk  xvi.  15-18. 

How  long  after  the  Lord's  second  appearance  to  the  assem- 
bled apostles  they  remained  in  Jerusalem,  we  are  not  told.     It  is 
said  by  Hengstenberg  that  they  went  to  Galilee  the  next  day; 
this  is  probable.     It  is  also  probable  that  they  continued   to- 
27 


636  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIIL 

gether,  and  went  to  the  same  place  on  the  sea  of  Galilee,  which 
we  may  believe  to  have  been  Capernaum.  Six  persons  are 
mentioned  as  going  to  fish  with  Peter,  of  these  five  were  of  the 
apostles,  their  names  being  given.  Were  the  other  two  apostles? 
(Some  affirm  this;  so  Lightfoot,  who  thinks  them  to  have  been 
Andrew  and  Philip,  in  this  followed  by  Hengstenberg  and  oth- 
ers ;  contra,  Meyer,  Godet,  Nebe.)  It  is  a  point  which  we  have 
not  data  to  decide.  That  He  appeared  to  these  seven  and  not  to 
the  eleven  apostles,  seems  to  indicate  some  symbolical  meaning 
lying  under  this  number.  (As  to  the  many  points  of  resem- 
blance which  this  miracle  has  to  that  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Lord's  GalilEean  ministry,  see  Trench,  who  also  refers  approv- 
ingly to  Augustine's  symbolical  interpretations.) 

This  first  appearance  in  Galilee  after  His  resurrection,  leads  us  to 
contrast  it  with  the  Lord's  earlier  appearances  in  Judaea.  The  object 
of  the  latter  was,  as  we  have  seen,  to  prove  to  the  disciples  the  reality 
of  His  resurrection  as  preparatory  to  His  further  instructions;  and 
this  had  now  been  done.  They  were  in  Galilee  waiting  for  His  com- 
ing to  them.  That  the  seven  in  the  ship  did  not  at  first  recognize 
Him  standing  on  the  shore  several  hundred  feet  distant — "They 
knew  not  that  it  was  Jesus "  (compare  xx.  14)  —  may  have  been 
owing  in  part  to  the  distance,  and  perhaps  to  the  indistinct  morning 
light,  but  more  to  His  changed  appearance.  But  so  soon  as  He  is 
recognized,  and  it  is  John  who  first  recognized  Him,  He  is  again 
their  Lord  as  of  old,  and  proceeds  to  give  them  food  —  it  is  not  said 
whether  He  Himself  ate  of  it  —  and  then  holds  a  conversation  with 
Peter,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to  renew  his  commission  to  feed  His 
flock.  He  also  intimates  to  him  the  manner  of  his  death,  and  answers 
his  questions  respecting  the  future  of  John  (verses  18-22).  It  was 
now  understood  by  Peter,  and  doubtless  by  them  all,  that  their  real 
apostolic  work  was  about  to  begin  under  His  guidance,  who,  though 
absent,  would  direct  them  when  and  Avhere  to  cast  the  net. 

It  is  said  by  John  (xxi.  14)  that  "  this  is  now  the  third  time  that 
Jesus  showed  Himself  to  His  disciples,  after  that  He  was  risen  from 
the  dead."  It  is  generally  understood  that  the  Evangelist  here 
speaks  of  manifestations  made  "  to  the  circle  of  disciples,  not  to  indi- 
vidual persons"  (Meyer;  so  most).  It  is  said  by  Dwight  that 
"  '  third  '  refers  to  the  tliird  appearance  recorded  in  this  Gospel  before 
fi  company  of  the  apostles."  It  is  clear  that  in  his  three-fold  enumer- 
ation John  refers  to  the  apostles  as  constituting  the  most  important 
class  of  the  disciples,  although  in  each  case  he  speaks  of  an  appear- 


I 


Part  VIII.]      APPEARANCES  MENTIONED  BY  ST.  PAUL.        G:^? 

ance  to  the  disciples  —  fjLadrjral  —  not  to  the  ajiostles.  Caspari  thinks 
"  third  "  refers  to  the  third  appearance  of  which  John  was  a  witness. 

It  is  said  by  Meyer  and  others  that  these  three  appearances  cannot 
be  made  to  harmonize  with  the  statements  of  Paul  (1  Cor.  xv.  5,  G).  It 
will  be  necessary  therefore,  at  this  point,  to  examine  the  apostle's 
words. 

The  appearances  mentioned  by  St.  Paul.  Does  he  design  to  give  a 
chronological  outline  of  all  the  appearances  he  knew  of  ?  (So  Stein- 
nieyer;  contra,  Wieseler.)  His  words  are:  "lie  was  seen  of  Cephas; 
then  of  the  Twelve;  after  that,  He  was  seen  of  above  five  hundred 
brethren  at  once;  .  .  .  after  that  He  was  seen  of  James;  then  of 
all  the  apostles;  and  last  of  all,  He  was  seen  of  me  also."  Thus,  ex- 
cluding the  last  as  out  of  our  present  enquiry,  Paul  mentions  five 
appearances.  The  first,  that  to  Cephas  —  Peter  —  has  been  already 
spoken  of,  being  mentioned  by  Luke  (xxiv.  34).  Is  the  second,  that 
to  the  Twelve,  to  be  identified  with  that  on  Easter  evening,  or  with 
that  a  week  after,  or  with  that  just  before  the  ascension  ?  Or  is  it 
an  ajipearance  not  mentioned  by  the  Evangelists  ?  There  is  no  good 
reason  why  it  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  the  same  as  that  on  Easter  even- 
ing (so  Lightfoot,  McClellan,  Stroud,  Rob.,  Westcott;  but  Gardiner 
identifies  it  with  that  on  the  second  Sunday  evening).  The  use  of 
the  term  "Twelve"  here  decides  nothing,  since  this  is  the  designa- 
tion of  the  apostolic  college,  whether  all  were  present  or  not. 

The  third  appearance,  that  to  the  five  hundred  brethren,  is  not 
mentioned  by  the  Evangelists;  whether  it  is  to  be  identified  with  that 
to  the  Eleven  at  the  mountain  in  Galilee  (Matt,  xxviii.  16)  will  be 
soon  considered. 

The  fourth  appearance  mentioned  by  Paul  is  that  to  James ;  of 
this  also  the  Evangelists  say  nothing.  When  and  where  was  it  ?  If 
the  apostle  follows  the  chronological  order,  it  was  after  that  to  the  five 
hundred ;  but  it  may  have  been  either  in  Galilee  or  in  Judaja.  What 
James  was  this  ?  Some  say  the  apostle  James,  the  brother  of  John  (so 
Steinmeyer),  but  most,  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord.  (So  Estius, 
171  loco:  Porro  doctor um omnium sententia  est;  Bp.  Lightfoot,  Gal.,  260; 
Meyer.)  If  to  the  last,  it  is  most  probable  that  the  Lord  appeared  to 
him  in  Galilee  where  he  dwelt  with  his  brothers,  and  soon  after  He 
Himself  went  to  Galilee.  It  is  generally  believed  that  this  appear- 
ance to  James  was  the  means  of  convincing  him  and  his  brothers  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  as  all  appear  in  the  upper  room  after  His 
ascension  (Acts  i.  14).' 


1  Aa  to  the  apocryphal  story  in  "  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,"  it  is  re- 
jected by  Estius  and  most.    See  Hofmann,  393. 


628  THE   LIFE    OF   OUR   LORD,  [Part  VIII. 

The  fifth  appearance  was  to  "all  the  apostles."  This  is  usually 
identified  with  that  mentioned  in  Acts  i.  6,  when  He  led  them  out  to 
the  Mount  of  Olives.  But  why  say  "all  the  apostles"  rather  than 
"The  Twelve"?  Some  say  that  here  a  secondary  class  of  Apostles  is 
included  (so  Bp.  Lightfoot,  Meyer) ;  others  that  a  contrast  is  put 
between  James  as  one  of  the  ajiostles  and  all  of  them  taken  collect- 
ively, or  between  James  as  not  an  apostle  and  the  apostolic  college. 

That  St.  Paul  mentions  these  appearances  in  the  order  of  time, 
is  probable,  the  adverbial  particles  indicating  this  (so  Meyer ;  contra, 
Wieseler) ;  though  a  long  interval  elajises  between  the  last  appear- 
ance to  the  apostles  and  that  to  himself.  That  he  mentioned  all  the 
appearances  he  knew  of,  is  scarcely  possible,  though  the  lirinciple  of 
selection  is  not  clear;  he  doubtless  selected  them  with  reference  to 
the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  Corinthian  Christians. 

Returning  now  to  the  assertion  of  Meyer,  that  John  and  Paul  con- 
tradict each  other,  we  ask  wherein  the  contradiction  lies?  That  each 
mentions  appearances  not  mentioned  by  the  other  is  plain  ;  that  either 
of  them  professes  to  mention  them  all,  is  not  said,  or  implied. 

The  only  appearance  of  the  Lord  in  Galilee  mentioned  by  Mat- 
thew is  that  to  the  eleven  disciples  (xxviii.  16).  Is  this  the  same  as 
the  appearance  to  the  five  hundred  ?  This  is  generally  affirmed,  but 
on  differing  grounds.  Some  find  a  proof  that  there  were  others  be- 
side the  apostles  present,  in  Matthew's  words,  "some  doubted"  (so 
Rob.).  They  think  that  none  of  the  Eleven,  to  whom  the  Lord  had 
said,  "Receive ye  the  Holy  Ghost,"  remembering  the  past  appearances 
of  the  Lord  to  them,  and  that  they  were  now  gathered  expressly  to 
meet  Him,  could  have  been  among  these  doubters.  If  not,  others 
must  liave  been  there;  and  as  most  of  His  Galilaean  disciples  had  not 
seen  Him  since  His  resurrection,  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  some 
among  them  should  doubt.  To  this  may  be  added,  as  confirmatory, 
the  fact  that  the  Lord's  direction  by  the  angel  to  the  women  to  go 
into  Galilee  was  general,  embracing  all  the  disciples.  Thus  it  is 
made  possible  that  five  hundred  were  now  present;  though  some 
limit  them  to  the  Seventy.  But  this  proof  is  not  at  all  conclusive. 
Matthew's  words  seem  clearly  to  state  that  some  of  the  apostles 
doubted  (so  Meyer,  Keil,  Nebe ;  for  early  opinions,  see  Maldonatus  in 
loco).  The  grounds  of  this  doubt  will  be  considered  later.  The  fact 
of  their  doubting  does  not,  however,  show  that  the  five  hundred 
disciples  were  not  there  with  the  Eleven.  (This  is  held  by  many, 
Lightfoot,  Norton,  Ebrard,  Stier,  Alford,  Ellicott,  Nebe). 

But  is  it  probable  that  the  commission  (verses  19,  20)  would  be 
given  to  the  apostles  in  the  presence  of  all?    or  are  we  to  regard  the 


Part  V'lll.]      APPEARANCE  TO   THE   FIVE   HUNDRED.  629 

commission  as  given  to  all?  If  given  to  the  apostles,  as  the  leaders 
and  representatives  of  the  church,  as  held  by  most,  there  seems 
a  propriety  in  commissioning  them  in  the  presence  of  all  the  dis- 
ciples. But  some  afRrm  that  these  words  of  Matthew  do  not  refer 
to  any  special  commission,  or  were  spoken  on  a  single  occasion,  but 
are  a  very  brief  summary  of  the  Lord's  teachings  during  all  the  forty 
days;  and  others,  who  hold  that  they  were  spoken  to  the  apostles 
only,  think  them  spoken  in  Jerusalem  or  on  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
just  before  the  ascension.  (So  Maldonatus,  a  Lapide.)  But  if  this 
view  be  held,  it  excludes  the  presence  of  the  five  hundred;  for  it  is 
not  possible  that  such  a  gathering  could  have  taken  place  at  Jerusa- 
lem and  not  have  been  disturbed  by  the  Pharisees  and  rulers. 

It  has  been  said  by  some  that  the  five  hundred  assembled  in  Jeru- 
salem the  week  following  the  resurrection,  thus  distinguishing  this 
appearance  to  them  from  the  later  appearance  to  the  Eleven,  which 
was  in  Galilee  (so  Dwight,  in  Godet,  ii.  537).  This  is  in  all  respects 
improbable. 

The  mountain  in  Galilee  where  the  apostles  met  the  Lord  accord- 
ing to  His  appointment,  is  not  named.  It  was,  doubtless,  one  of  those 
near  the  lake  of  Galilee;  some  have  said  the  mount  where  the  sermon 
was  delivered  (Matt.  v.  1) ;  others,  that  where  He  was  transfigured 
(Matt.  xvii.  1);  others,  that  where  He  chose  the  Twelve  (Mark  iii. 
13);  or,  possibly,  that  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  where  He  fed  the 
five  thousand  (John  vi.  13).' 

When  the  Lord  made  the  appointment  for  this  meeting,  we  are  not 
told.  It  may  be  that  in  His  direction  before  His  death  to  go  to  Gali- 
lee this  mount  was  mentioned,  but  more  probably  it  was  not  till  later 
at  one  of  His  appearances  to  the  Eleven.  Wherever  the  five  hundred 
were  gathered,  both  the  time  and  the  place  must  have  been  definitely 
known,  and  the  notice  have  been  early  and  widely  given. 

If  some  of  the  apostles  doubted,  of  what  did  they  doubt? 
Whether  they  should  offer  to  Him  worship?*  It  is  not  indeed  any- 
where said  that  He  had  before  been  worshipped  by  them ;  and  now 
something  new  and  divine  in  His  aspect  may  have  impelled  them  to 
the  act  (see  Matt,  xxviii.  9,  John  xx.  23).     But  their  doubts  could 


1  It  was  a  tradition  current  during  the  tniddle  ages  that  it  was  the  northern  peak 
of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  which  had  the  name  of  Galilee.  It  is  spoken  of  by  Maunde- 
ville,  A.  D.  1322  (Early  Travels,  177),  as  "  Mount  Galilee  where  the  apostles  assembled 
when  Mary  Magdalene  came  and  told  them  of  Christ's  ascension."  This  tradition  has 
recently  been  defended  by  Hofmann  (Leben  Jesu,  395),  but  is  wholly  untenable.  There 
is  no  mention  in  the  New  Testament  or  in  Josephus  of  any  mountain  called  Galilee; 
only  the  province  is  so  called.  Ewald,  Jahrbuch,  1856,  196;  Nebe,  Auferstehungs- 
geschichte,  .340. 

2  So  Wetstein,  quoted  in  Meyer;  De  Wette,  Lange. 


630  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIIL 

scarce  refer  to  this.  Did  they  doubt  of  Ilis  personal  identity? 
Some  have  thought  that  He  Tv-as  so  far  from  them  that  all  could  not 
at  first  distinctly  see  Him ;  others  refer  their  doubts  to  the  changed 
appearance  of  His  body,  either  as  already  glorified,  or  as  in  an  inter- 
mediate condition,  midway  between  the  earthly  and  heavenly. 
Some,  as  Newcome,  would  translate  it  "had  doubted,"  and  refer  it 
to  the  earlier  doubts  of  the  apostles.  "  Some  had  doubted  before; 
but  all  were  now  convinced."     Grammatical  accuracy  forbids  this. 

Thursday,  May  18th,  783.    A.  D.  30. 

After  the  meeting  upon  the  mountain  in  Galilee,  the  Luke  xxiv.  49. 

apostles  return  to  Jerusalem.     Upon  the  fortieth   day  Acts  i.  1-3. 

after  Ills  resurrection,  Jesus  gathers  the  Eleven  at  the  Acts  i.  4-8. 

Mount  of  Olives,  and,  leading  them  toward  Bethany,  as-  Luke  xxiv.  50,  51. 

cends  to  heaven.     While  they  are  gazing  after  Him,  two  Mark  xvi.  19. 

men  stand  by  them,  and  remind  them  that  He  is  to  re-  Acts  i.  9-12. 

turn.     The  apostles  go  back  to  Jerusalem,  and  there  wait  Luke  xxiv.  52,  53. 

for  the  promised  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     After  Pen-  Mark  xvi.  20. 
tecost  they  begin  their  labors. 

At  what  time  the  apostles  returned  to  Jerusalem  we  are  not 
told,  but  we  may  believe  that  it  was  only  a  very  short  time  before 
the  ascension.  That  Luke  in  his  statement  (Acts  i.  3),  that 
Jesus  "  showed  Himself  alive  after  His  passion  by  many  infalli- 
ble proofs,  being  seen  of  [the  apostles]  forty  days,  and  speaking 
of  the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God,"  includes  more 
interviews  than  are  specifically  recorded  by  any  of  the  Evangel- 
ists, cannot  well  be  doubted;  and  that  these  interviews  occurred 
in  Galilee  before  the  apostles  went  up  to  Jerusalem,  not  in  Jeru- 
salem, is  almost  certain.  In  favor  of  Galilee  it  may  be  said,  that 
here  the  apostles  were  at  home  and  among  friends,  and  that 
amidst  the  scenes  of  His  former  teachings  His  present  words 
would  come  with  double  power  and  meaning;  while  in  Jerusa- 
lem they  would  be  among  His  enemies,  and  in  a  state  of  dis- 
quietude, if  not  of  positive  fear.  We  may,  then,  suppose  that  it 
was  near  the  fortieth  day  ere  they  went  up  to  Jerusalem.  Thaf 
they  went  in  obedience  to  some  special  direction,  is  probable, 
and  not  simply  to  be  pi'esent  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  which  was 
more  than  ten  days  later;  but  that  they  knew  for  what  end  He 
had  gathered  them  there,  may  be  doubted.  Indeed  it  is  probable 
tha-  ^o  far  from  supposing  that  He  was  then  about  to  depart  from 


Part  VIII.]         THE  ASCENSION  —  ITS  PLACE.  631 

them  into  heaven,  they  rather  hoped  and  expected  that  He  was 
about  to  reveal  Himself  in  glory,  and  to  commence  His  reign.  That 
the  mother  of  Jesus  and  the  other  women  left  Jerusalem  and 
went  to  Galilee,  and  were  with  the  five  hundred,  is  almost  cer- 
tain; and  that  they  returned  to  Jerusalem  with  the  apostles, 
appears  from  the  mention  of  them  as  with  the  apostles  in 
the  upper  chamber  immediately  after  the  ascension  (Acts  i. 
14).  Probably  they  were  accompanied  on  their  return  by  His 
brethren. 

It  is  from  the  statements  of  Luke  in  his  Gospel  (xxiv.  50,  51),  and 
in  the  Acts  (i.  4-12),  that  we  learn  the  details  of  the  Lord's  departure 
into  heaven.  In  the  latter  (verse  4)  we  read:  "And  being  assembled 
together  with  them,  He  commanded  them  that  they  should  not  depart 
from  Jerusalem,  but  wait  for  the  promise  of  the  Father,  which,  saith 
He,  ye  have  lieard  of  Me.  For  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but 
ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence. 
When  they  therefore  were  come  together,  they  asked  of  Him,"  etc. 
Are  two  different  assemblings  here  spoken  of  ? '  This  seems  most 
probable,  tho  two  expressions  "  being  assembled  together  with  them," 
and,  "  when  they  therefore  were  come  together,"  clearly  pointing  to 
two  distinct  and  successive  occasions.^  But  there  need  have  been  no 
long  interval  between  them ;  they  may  have  been  on  two  successive 
days,  or  even  one  in  the  morning  and  the  other  in  the  afternoon  of 
the  same  day.  The  place  of  their  assembling  was  not  improbably  the 
upper  room  of  the  paschal  supper. 

As  Luke  alone  of  the  Evangelists  mentions  the  place  of  the  Ascen- 
sion, we  must  turn  to  his  statements.  He  says  in  his  Gospel  (xxiv. 
50):  "And  He  led  them  out  as  far  as  to  Bethany  "  —  ews  ets  Br]0avlav  ; 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (i.  12)  :  "Then  returned  they  unto  Jerusa- 
lem from  the  mount  called  Olivet,  which  is  from  Jerusalem  a  sabbath 
day's  journey."  The  topographical  objection  to  the  traditional  site 
of  the  ascension  is,  that  it  is  but  about  half  a  mile  from  the  city  wall ; 
and  if  Jesus  was  separated  from  the  disciples  here,  He  did  not  lead 
them  out  as  far  as  to  Bethany.  There  is  also  another  objection,  in 
the  fact  of  its  publicity,  being  in  full  view  from  the  city.  But  if  we 
construe  the  statement,  "  as  far  as  to  Bethany,"  to  mean  the  village 
of  Bethany,  we,  on  the  other  hand,  make  Luke  inconsistent  with  him- 


1  As  to  the  right  rendering  in  verse  4,  there  is  question.  In  the  margin  of  our  ver 
sion,  for  "being  assembled"  is  put,  "eating  together  with  them  ";  this  is  accepted  by 
Meyer;  in  Vul.  convescens.    The  R.  V.  retains  "  being  assembled." 

2  So  Olshausen;  Hackett,  Com.  on  Acts,  in  loco;  Cook,  and  others;  contra,  Alford, 
and  Gloag,  Com.  on  Acts. 


632  THE   LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD.  [I'iilt  Vlll, 

self,  «ince  this  is  a  mile  below  the  summit  of  Olivet,  and  much  more 
than  a  sabbath  day's  journey.  But  the  now  generally  accepted  text 
of  Luke  in  the  Gospel  does  not  say  that  "  the  Lord  led  them  out  as 
far  as  to  Bethany,"  but,  "  He  led  them  out  till  they  were  over  against 
Bethany,"  R.  V.  — -n-pb^  Br)eavlav  —  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.  It  is  remarked 
by  Riddle  (Har,  272)  that  '•  this  reading  has  relieved  us  of  an  appar- 
ent contradiction  between  Luke's  statements  here  and  in  Acts  i.  12." 
It  is  therefore  unnecessary  to  repeat  here  the  several  solutions  formerly 
given.  It  was  near  Bethany  or  in  its  vicinity  that  the  Ascension  took 
place.  That  the  "Mount  of  Olives"  is  a  general  designation  embrac- 
ing the  eastern  as  well  as  the  western  slopes,  is  apparent  from  various 
passages  in  tlie  Evangelists.  We  have,  then,  to  seek  a  site  some- 
where upon  the  mount,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Bethany,  and  distant 
about  a  sabbath  day's  journey  from  Jerusalem.'  Such  a  site  Barclay 
thinks  he  finds  in  a  hill  which  overhangs  Bethany,  which  lies  about 
fivfl  hundred  yards  below.  This  hill  is  a  mile  from  St.  Stephen's 
gate,  and  within  a  hundred  yards  of  the  direct  footpath  from  Beth- 
any to  Jerusalem.  It  is  said  by  McGarvey  (210):  "  About  half  a  mile 
southeast  of  the  principal  summit  is  a  rounded  knoll,  nearly  of  the 
same  height,  connected  to  the  mount  by  a  narrow,  depressed  ledge, 
with  a  steep  descent  on  the  eastern  side.  Bethany  lies  immediately 
imder  this  knoll  on  its  eastern  slope."  However  it  may  be  with  these 
particular  spots,  there  is  little  doubt  that  from  some  one  of  the 
heights  a  little  below  the  summit  of  Olivet,  that  look  to  the  east  and 
overhang  the  village  of  Bethany,  He  ascended  to  sit  at  the  right  hand 
of  His  Father. 

The  supposed  exact  spot  of  the  Ascension  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives 
has  been  preserved  by  tradition,  of  which  Robinson  (ii.  253)  speaks  as 
"  one  of  the  very  earliest  traditions  on  record,"  and  "  which  certainly 
existed  in  the  third  century  long  before  the  visit  of  Helena."  It  is 
certain  that  Helena,  mother  of  Constantine,  erected  a  church  upon 
the  summit,  and  probably  near  the  present  site;  though  Stanley  (448) 
claims  that  she  did  not  mean  to  honor  the  scene  of  the  Ascension 
itself,  but  a  cave  in  which,  according  to  Eusebius,  Jesus  initiated  His 
disciples  into  His  secret  mysteries.  "There  is,  in  fact,  no  proof  from 
Eusebius  that  auy  tradition  pointed  out  the  scene  of  the  Ascension."" 


1  The  mountain  at  its  base  and  lower  slopes,  is  witliin  a  few  rods  of  the  city. 
"  The  mean  distance,"  says  Barclay  (59),  "  of  that  portion  of  its  summit  opposite  the  city 
is  about  half  a  mile.  But  by  the  nearest  pathway  it  is  918  yards  from  St.  Stephen's  gate 
to  the  Church  of  the  Ascension;  by  the  longer  footpath,  1,310  yards;  and  by  the  main 
camel  road,  is  perhaps  a  little  farther." 

-  For  a  history  of  the  mount  and  a  description  of  the  present  Church  of  the  Ascen- 
sion, see  Baed.,  218,  who  says:  "In  the  center  of  the  chapel,  which  is  octagonal  in  shape 
with  u.  small  dome,  is  the  spot  where  Christ  is  said  to  have  ascended.    It  belongs  to  the 


Part  VIII.]      TRADITIONAL   SITE   OF  THE   ASCENSION.        G33 

As  to  the  rock  within  the  present  chapel,  which  has  been  pointed  out 
to  pilgrims  since  the  seventh  century  as  bearing  the  imprint  of  the 
Lord's  footsteps,  Stanley  says,  "  There  is  nothing  but  a  simple  cav- 
ity in  the  rock,  with  no  more  resemblance  to  a  human  foot  than  to 
anything  else." 

The  traditional  site  is  defended  by  Williams  (Holy  City,  ii,  240). 
The  northern  peak  of  the  ridges  began  to  be  known  in  the  16th  cen- 
tury as  viri  Galilaei,  because  it  was  said  that  ' '  the  two  men  in 
white"  stood  here  and  addressed  the  apostles  :  "Ye  men  of  Galilee, 
why  stand  ye  gazing  up  into  heaven  "  ? 

The  ascension  itself  is  mentioned  only  by  Mark  and  Luke;  how 
are  we  to  account  for  the  silence  of  Matthew  and  John  ?  Not  of  course 
from  ignorance,  or  because  they  disparaged  its  importance ;  but  be- 
cause it  was  the  natural  sequence  of  the  resurrection,  and  therefore 
needed  no  special  mention.  The  Lord  had  often  spoken  of  His 
departure  to  the  Father,  and  explained  to  the  apostles  its  necessity. 
Except  He  ascended  into  Heaven,  He  could  not  send  upon  them  "the 
Holy  Ghost;  and  without  His  presence  they  could  not  do  their  work, 
nor  the  Church  be  gathered.  His  departure,  therefore,  was  a  step 
onward,  and  one  essential  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  divine  pur- 
pose in  the  establishment  of  the  Messianic  kingdom.  Besides,  as  He 
had  appeared  to  them  for  brief  intervals  during  the  forty  days  and 
again  disappeared,  His  personal  absence  for  a  longer  but  an  indefinite 
period  did  not  seem  to  them  as  an  event,  like  the  resurrection,  to  be 
recorded,  with  all  fullness  of  detail.  We  are  also  to  remember  that 
none  then  believed  that  His  absence  would  be  long,  but  looked  upon 
his  reappearing  as  possible  at  any  hour.  Thus  placing  ourselves  in 
the  position  of  the  early  Christians,  we  are  not  surprised  that  two  of 
the  Evangelists  puss  the  ascension  over  without  mention.  It  was  the 
natural  sequence  of  the  resurrection,  it  had  been  foretold,  they  had 
become  familiar  during  the  forty  days  with  His  sudden  appearings 
and  disappearings,  they  looked  to  see  Him  speedily  appear  again ;  it 
might,  therefore,  be  passed  over,  or  if  mentioned,  only  briefly.  This 
brief  mention  is  all  that  we  find  in  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke. 
It  is  only  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  that  Luke  enters  more  into  de- 
tail, evidently  regarding  the  ascension  as  the  beginning  of  the  Lord's 
heavenly  activity,  and  therefore,  as  having  its  right  place  as  intro- 
ductory to  the  work  of  the  apostles.  The  Gospels  end  with  the  end 
of  the  Lord's  work  on  the  earth ;  any  mention  of  the  ascension  was 
not  demanded. 


Moslems,  who  also  regard  it  as  sacred,  but  Christians  are  permitted  to  celebrate  mass  in 
it  on  certain  days."    See  also  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  Art.,  Mount  of  Olives. 

27* 


634  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VlU 

But  we  have  still  to  consider  the  manner  in  which  Mark  and  Luke 
seem  to  connect  the  ascension  with  the  resurrection,  as  if  taking 
place  the  same  day.  And  we  will  first  examine  the  language  of  Mark 
(xvi.  14-20).  Two  points  here  meet  us :  a,  the  time  of  the  appear- 
ance (verse  14);  i,  the  time  when  the  words  (verses  15-18)  were 
spoken. 

a.  That  this  apjiearauce  was  on  the  evening  of  the  day  of  the  res- 
urrection, and  the  same  as  that  mentioned  by  John  (xx.  19),  has  been 
already  shown.  It  is  hardly  credible  that  tlie  Lord  who  on  that 
evening  showed  himself  to  the  Eleven,  would  at  any  later  period  have 
upbraided  them  with  their  unbelief  and  hardness  of  heart  in  not  be- 
lieving those  who  had  seen  him. 

J.  Were  the  words  (vs.  15-18)  —  the  command  to  go  into  all  the 
world  and  preach  the  gospel,  and  the  promise  of  the  signs  to  follow 
—  spoken  at  this  supper  or  later  ? 

From  the  connection  in  which  His  words  stand,  it  would  seem 
that  they  were  spoken  to  the  Eleven  as  they  sat  at  meat  on  the  even- 
ing of  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  and  that  immediately  after  He 
ascended  into  heaven.  This,  however,  is  wholly  irreconcilable  with 
the  statements  of  Luke  in  the  Acts;  and  it  is  also  intrinsically  im- 
probable that  upon  the  occasion  of  His  first  meeting  with  the  apostles 
after  He  had  risen,  and  while  their  minds  were  in  so  great  excite- 
ment. He  should  give  them  this  commission. 

It  is  affirmed  by  some,  as  Meyer  and  Alford,  that  Mark,  intending 
to  relate  what  took  place  at  one  and  the  same  time,  brings  together 
here  by  mistake  what  really  took  place  on  several  distinct  occasions. 
He  supposed  that  the  Lord  spake  these  words  to  the  Eleven  on  the 
evening  of  the  day  He  rose,  and  the  same  evening  ascended  to  heaven. 
But  the  same  rule  of  interpretation  seems  also  to  show  that  He  was 
received  up  from  the  room  in  which  they  were  eating,  and  that  the 
Eleven,  going  immediately  forth  from  this  room,  began  at  once  to 
preach  the  Gospel.  Of  course,  if  this  were  so,  the  writer,  whether 
Mark  or  some  one  else,  could  have  known  nothing  of  the  several  ap- 
pearances of  Jesus  during  the  forty  days,  of  the  ascension  from 
Bethany,  or  of  tlie  ten  days'  waiting  for  the  Spirit  ere  the  disciples 
began  to  i)rcach.  The  supposition  of  such  ignorance  on  his  part 
itself  presents  a  greater  difficulty  than  that  it  is  intended  to  remove. 

We  give  some  of  the  solutions  that  liave  been  proposed : 

1st.  That  which  takes  Mark's  narrative  as  strictly  chronological. 
The  Lord's  words  were  spoken  to  the  Eleven  on  the  evening  of  the 
day  of  the  resurrection,  and  His  ascension  immediately  followed. 
This  is  afiirmed  by  those  who,  as  Kinkel  and  Jones,  maintain  that  He 


Part  V  III.]  LAST  WORDS   OF  THE   LORD.  635 

repeatedly  ascended  to  heaven;  and,  indeed,  that  lie  departed  thither 
after  each  appearance  to  His  disciples.  The  ascension  on  the  forti- 
eth day  (Acts  i.  9)  was  the  last,  and  as  such  was  visible,  and  marked 
with  especial  solemnity.'  This  view  of  several  ascensions  may  remove 
some  difficulties,  but  involves  others  greater,  both  historical  and  dog- 
matic. 

2d.  That  which  makes  Jesus  to  have  spoken  these  words  to  the 
Eleven  on  the  evening  of  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  but  defers  the 
Ascension  itself  to  the  fortieth  day  following.  In  this  case  the 
phrase,  fj.€Ta  to  XaXrjcrai,  "  After  the  Lord  had  spoken  to  them  "  (verse 
19),  is  not  to  be  confined  to  the  few  words  just  recorded,  but  embraces 
His  discourses  in  general,  down  to  the  time  He  ascended. 

3d.  That  which  places  His  interview  with  the  Eleven  on  the 
evening  of  the  day  of  the  resurrection  (verse  14),  but  the  words  fol- 
lowing upon  some  subsequent  occasion,  perhaps  upon  the  mount  in 
Galilee;  and  the  ascension  at  a  still  later  period. 

4th.  That  which  makes  this  interview  with  the  Eleven  to  have 
been  after  the  return  of  Jesus  and  the  disciples  from  Galilee  to  Jeru- 
salem, and  immediately  before  the  ascension  at  Bethany.  (See  Acts, 
i.  4.) 

The  obvious  and  natural  interpretation  of  Mark's  narrative  is  this : 
The  Evangelist,  wishing  to  give  in  the  briefest  way  the  substance  of 
the  Lord's  missionary  commission  to  the  Church,  with  its  accompany- 
ing promises,  connects  it  with  a  meeting  of  the  eleven  apostles,  which, 
for  reasons  already  given,  was  probably  on  the  evening  of  the  day  of 
the  resurrection.  All  the  instructions  of  the  forty  days  upon  this 
point  are  summed  up  in  these  few  words.  In  the  same  concise  way 
it  is  said,  that  after  the  Lord  had  spoken  to  them,  or  after  He  had 
finished  His  instructions,  He  was  received  up.  To  press  this  brevity 
as  indicating  ignorance  on  his  part  of  the  real  order  of  events,  is 
hypercritical. 

Substantially  the  same  difficulties  meet  us  in  the  narrative  of  Luke 
as  in  that  of  Mark.  In  his  Gospel  (xxiv.  33-51),  he  seems  to  repre- 
sent the  ascension  as  taking  place  the  evening  after  Jesus  rose  from 
the  dead.  The  Lord  meets  the  Eleven  and  others  as  they  were  gath- 
ered together,  and  after  convincing  them  that  He  was  really  risen  by 
eating  before  them  and  discoursing  to  them,  He  leads  them  out  to 
Bethany,  and  blessing  them,  is  carried  up  into  heaven. 

We  have  already  seen  that  this  ajipearance  of  the  Lord  in  Luke 
when  He  ate  before  them,  is  the  same  as  the  appearance  in  John  (xx. 


1  See  Kinkel,  Studien  u.  Krit.,  1841,  translated  in  Bib.  Sacra,  Feb.,  1844.  Jones, 
(Notes,  480) :  "  He  was,  during  the  forty  days,  ordinarily  an  inhabitant  of  the  heavenly 
world."    See  cotUra,  Robinson,  in  Bib.  Sacra,  May,  1845. 


636  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIII. 

19.)  It  was  on  the  evening  of  the  day  of  the  resurrection  that  the 
two  returned  from  Emmaus  and  found  the  Eleven  gatliered  together, 
and  then  the  Lord  appeared  to  them. 

Our  second  inquiry  is  as  to  the  time  when  the  words  (verses 
44-48)  were  spoken.  This  is  not  certain.  Some,  regarding  them  as 
spoken  at  one  time,  would  put  them  in  immediate  connection  with 
what  precedes;  others  refer  tliem  to  a  later  period  —  to  tlie  second 
interview  with  the  Eleven  after  eight  days,  or  to  the  meeting  upon 
the  mount  in  Galilee,  or  to  the  day  of  the  ascension ;  others  affirm 
that  the  Evangelist  gives  here  a  summary  of  Jesus'  teachings  during 
the  forty  days ;  giving  especial  prominence  to  His  teaching  respecting 
the  fulfillment  of  prophecy  in  His  death,  and  in  its  further  fulfill- 
ment through  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  to  all  nations.  Whether 
the  opening  their  understanding  to  understand  the  scriptures  refers 
to  some  special  act  (John  xx.  22),  or  to  a  gradual  process  of  spiritual 
illumination,  is  in  question. 

We  have  seen  that  Luke  in  his  statements  in  the  Gospel  and  in 
the  Acts  is  consistent  as  to  the  place  of  the  ascension,  is  he  consistent 
also  as  to  the  time  ?  Before  comparing  them  as  to  this  point,  we 
must  examine  the  text  of  the  Gospel.  Tischendorf,  in  verse  51,  omits 
"and  was  carried  into  heaven,"  and  in  verse  52 :  "  and  they  worshipped 
Him."  (They  are  bracketed  by  W.  and  H.,  but  retained  in  the  R.  V.) 
If  omitted,  we  read:  "And  it  came  to  pass,  while  He  blessed  them, 
He  was  parted  from  them,  and  they  returned  to  Jerusalem  with 
great  joy."  This  very  brief  mention  here  is  wholly  in  keeping  with 
Luke's  intention  to  speak  more  fully  in  his  later  treatise. 

The  question  now  arises  whether  this  Evangelist  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  contradicts  anything  he  has  said  in  his  Gospel.  This  is 
affirmed  by  Meyer.  According  to  him,  there  were  two  traditions,  one 
of  which  represented  the  Lord  as  ascending  upon  the  day  of  the  resur- 
rection ;  the  other,  after  forty  days.  In  his  Gospel,  Luke  follows  the 
former;  in  the  Acts,  the  latter.  With  Meyer,  Alford  agrees.  "Luke, 
at  the  time  of  writing  his  Gospel,  was  not  aware  of  any  Galilsean  ap- 
pearances of  the  Lord,  nor  indeed  of  any  later  than  this  one.  That 
he  corrects  this  in  Acts  i.,  shows  him  to  have  become  acquainted  with 
some  other  sources  of  information,  not  however,  perhaps,  including 
the  Galiltean  appearances."  All  this  is  arbitrary  conjecture.  There 
is  not  tlie  slightest  hint  that  the  Evangelist  wished  to  correct  in  the 
later  account  an  error  in  the  earlier.  Had  he  made  so  gross  a  mistake, 
common  honesty  toward  his  readers  would  have  demanded  an  explicit 
statement  of  it,  and  a  retraction ;  for  how  otherwise  could  Theophilus 
or  any  of  his  readers,  know  which  account  to  believe?  On  the  con- 
trary, lie  says  that  his  former  treatise  embraced  all  that  Jesus  did  and 


Part  VIIL]  SUMMARY  OP  APPEARANCES.  637 

taught  "  until  the  day  in  which  He  was  taken  up,"  "being  seen  of 
the  apostles  forty  days. "  This  is  a  plain  averment  that  in  his  Gospel 
he  placed  the  ascension  on  the  fortieth  day,  although  he  did  not 
there  give  any  specific  designation  of  time. ' 

Those  who,  like  Jones,  make  the  Lord  to  have  often  ascended, 
refer  these  accoimts  of  Luke  to  diflferent  events.  In  the  Gospel,  he 
speaks  of  the  ascension  on  the  evening  following  the  resurrection ; 
in  Acts,  of  the  last  ascension.  And  as  the  time,  so  the  place  was 
different ;  the  former  ascension  being  from  Bethany,  the  latter  from 
the  summit  of  tlie  Mount  of  Olives.'  But  Luke's  language  in  his 
Gospel,  plainly  shows  that  he  cannot  speak  of  an  ascension  upon 
the  evening  of  the  day  M'hen  Jesus  arose.  The  day  was  far  spent 
when  He  was  with  the  two  disciples  at  Emmaus,  and  they  had  still 
to  return  to.  Jerusalem,  and  probably  were  some  time  with  the  Eleven, 
ere  He  joined  them.  Hours  may  have  passed  in  convincing  them  of 
His  actual  resurrection,  and  in  discoursing  to  them.  It  must,  there- 
fore, have  been  late  in  the  evening  ere  He  led  them  out  to  Bethany, 
and  the  ascension  itself  must  have  been  in  the  dead  of  night.  This 
is  intrinsically  improbable,  not  to  say  incredible.  It  may  have  been 
at  sunset  or  in  the  early  evening. 

"We  may  now  sum  up  the  general  results  of  our  investigations. 

The  forty  days,  or  five  weeks  and  five  days,  beginning  Easter 
Sunday,  April  9th,  and  ending  Thursday,  May  1 8th,  may  be 
divided  into  three  periods.  1st.  That  in  Judaea  from  Easter 
Sunday  to  the  departure  into  Galilee.  '2d.  That  in  Galilee.  3d. 
That  after  the  return  to  Jerusalem  to  the  ascension. 

During  the  first  period,  from  Easter  Sunday  till  the  Sunday 
following  inclusive,  there  were  six  appearances,  five  on  Easter 
Sunday:  (a)  to  Mary  Magdalene;  (h)  to  the  other  women;  (c)  to 
the  two  at  Emmaus;  (d)  to  Peter;  (e)  to  the  Eleven;  on  the  next 
Sunday  (/)  to  the  Eleven.  That  the  Lord  may  have  appeared 
to  His  mother  on  Easter  day  or  during  the  week,  is  probable, 
but  not  recorded. 

During  the  second  period,  after  the  arrival  in  Galilee,  there 
were  two,  probably  three,  recorded  appearances:  (a)  to  the  seven 
at  the  Sea  of  Tiberias;  (i)  to  the  five  hundred,  the  Eleven  being 
present;   (c)  to  James. 

1  See  Ebrard,  596. 

2  In  this  way  Jones  (5ir))  explains  the  statement  of  Barnabas,  that  the  Lord  as- 
cended on  the  eighth  day.  The  final  ascension  was  on  the  .'jth  day  of  the  week,  or  Thurs- 
day, that  to  which  JtJarnabas  refers  was  on  the  8th  or  first  day  of  the  week,  and  the  very 
day  on  which  he  arose.    See  Hefele,  Patriini  .Vpostolicoruni  Opera.^-fcJ;  Nebe,  381- 


638  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD.  [Part  VIIL 

During  the  third  period,  after  the  return  to  Jerusalem  to  the 
ascension  —  some  two  days  —  there  were  two  appearances:  (a) 
to  the  apostles  first  assembling  somewhere  in  the  city;  (b)  to 
them  in  the  city  to  lead  them  out  to  Bethany. 

The  length  of  each  of  these  periods  can  only  approximately 
be  given.  1.  In  Jerusalem,  and  including  time  of  journey  to 
Galilee,  twelve  days.  2.  In  Galilee,  twenty-three  days.  3. 
Journey  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem  and  in  the  city,  five  days. 
In  regard  to  those  utterances  of  the  Lord  during  the  forty  days 
the  time  and  place  of  which  are  in  dispute,  we  give  a  brief 
classification  of  opinions. 

1  (Matt,  xxviii.  18-20).  (a)  In  Galilee  to  the  Eleven  alone; 
(?>)  to  the  Eleven  and  five  hundred ;  (c)  in  Jerusalem  before  or 
at  His  ascension  ;  (f?)  a  summary  of  all  the  Galilsean  teachings. 

2  (Mark  xvi.  15-18).  (a)  In  Jerusalem  on  the  evening  of 
Easter  day;  (b)  on  evening  of  second  Sunday;  (c)  just  before  or 
at  His  ascension;  (cZ)  spoken  at  same  time  with  Matt,  xxviii. 
18-20. 

3  (Luke  xxiv.  44-48).  1.  All  spoken  at  one  time,  (a)  On 
evening  of  Easter  day;  (b)  in  Jerusalem  after  return  from  Gali- 
lee. 2.  Spoken  at  different  times,  (a)  Some  parts  on  day  of 
the  ascension;  (i)  other  parts  earlier  during  the  forty  days;  (c) 
a  summary  of  all  His  teachings  to  His  ascension ;  (cZ)  some  parts 
spoken  on  day  of  ascension,  other  parts  earlier  during  the  forty 
days.  That  the  command  (verse  49)  to  tarry  in  the  city  of 
Jerusalem  was  spoken  after  they  had  returned  thither  from  Gali- 
lee, and  is  identical  with  the  command  Acts  i.  4,  needs  no  proof. 

Thus  comparing  the  several  Evangelists,  we  find  that  the 
Lord  during  the  forty  days  first  manifested  Himself  to  His  dis- 
ciples in  Judaea,  and  going  thence  to  Galilee,  returned  again  to 
Judaea  to  ascend  to  God.  So  far  as  we  can  learn,  it  was  not  His 
purpose  to  have  shown  Himself  to  them  in  Jerusalem,  for  He 
had  commanded  them  to  go  into  Galilee,  and  there  they  should 
see  Him.  But  their  unbelief  in  His  words  respecting  His  resur- 
rection, made  it  necessary  that  He  should  manifest  Himself  to 
them  there;  yet  even  after  they  had  seen  Him,  the  unbelief  of 
one  seems  to  have  detained  them  some  days  in  Jerusalem.  As 
in  Galilee  He  had  gathered  His  disciples,  so  here  He  appoints  a 


Part  VIll.]       THE   lord's   return   IN   GLORY.  639 

place  of  general  meeting.  But  He  cannot  ascend  to  His  Father 
from  Galilee.  As  He  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  die,  He  now  goes 
up  thither  again,  that  from  the  Mount  of  Olives  overlooking  the 
Holy  City  and  the  temple.  He  may  ascend  to  His  Father's  right 
hand  to  receive  the  kingdom;  to  enter  on  His  work  of  interces- 
sion ;  to  send  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  gathering  and  forming  of 
His  church;  and  to  await  the  hour  when  His  feet  shall  stand 
again  upon  the  Mount,  and  His  enemies  shall  be  made  His  foot- 
stool, and  the  rejected  and  crucified  One  shall  be  King  over  all 
the  earth. 

**^e  men  of  ©altlec,  wb^  6tan5  ^c  ga3ing  up  into  beaven? 
Q:bl0  same  Jesus  wbicb  is  taken  up  from  sou  into  beaven,  sball 
60  come  in  like  manner  as  ge  bave  seen  Ibim  go  into  beaven." 


APPENDIX. 


I.     The    Miracles    of     the    Gospels. 

PREPARED    BY   MR.    E.    E.    NOURSE. 

In  the  Gospels  there  are,  if  I  mistake  not,  fifty-seven  distinct 
miraculous  occurrences  noted. 

The  above  enumeration  does  not  include  such  events  as  have 
a  more  or  less  supernatural  character,  but  which  cannot  be  classed  as 
miraculous.  I  mean  such  events  as  Mary's  psalm  of  praise,  the 
words  of  Zacharias  at  the  baptism  of  John,  the  utterances  of  Simeon 
and  Anna  —  all  of  which  were  inspired  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  The  mission  of  the  wise  men,  the  warnings  given 
to  Joseph  in  a  dream,  the  temptation  of  Christ,  the  impulse  of  John 
the  Baptist  to  preach,  his  knowledge  of  Christ  —  all  these  are  more  or 
less  extraordinary  and  supernatural  in  character,  but  are  not  to  be 
called  miraculous. 

Of  the  fifty-seven  events  of  the  Gospel  history  which  we  have 
called  miraculous,  five  are  events  connected  with  the  Saviour's  birth 
and  infancy.     They  are : 

1.  Angel  appears  to  Zacharias.     Luke  i. 

2.  Angel  appears  to  Mary.     Luke  i. 

3.  Loosening  of  Zacharias'  tongue,  etc.     Luke  i. 

4.  Angel  appears  to  Joseph.     Matt.  i. 

5.  Angel  appears  to  shepherds.     Luke  ii. 

Of  the  remaining  fifty-two,  there  are  two  which  were  performed 
without  any  direct  volition  of  the  Saviour,  that  is  by  God  Himself. 
They  are : 

1.  The  baptism  of  Christ  by  the  Holy  Spirit  at  the  Jordan.  Matt. 
iii.  16. 

2.  The  miracles  at  the  crucifixion  —  rending  of  the  vail  of  the 
temple,  opening  of  graves,  etc.     Matt,  xxvii.,  xxviii. 

The  fifty  we  now  have  left,  are  capable  of  still  further  subdivision. 
Twelve  of  these  fifty  were  events  which  were  miraculous  in  their 
nature,  actings  of  the  Father  upon  the  Son,  or  appearances  of  the 
Son  or  of  angels  after  His  resurrection,  but  were  not  wrought,  like 
healings,  upon  others.     They  are ; 

(641) 


G4:2  APPENDIX. 

1.  The  transfiguration  of  Christ.     Matt.  xvii. 

2.  The  resurrection  of  Christ.     Matt,  xxviii. 

3.  The  angels  at  the  sepulchre.     Matt,  xxviii. 

4.  Jesus  appears  to  the  women.     Matt,  xxviii. 

5.  Jesus  appears  to  Mary  Magdalene.     Mark  xvi. 

6.  Jesus  appears  to  Peter.     Luke  xxiv. 

7.  Jesus  appears  to  two  disciples.     Luke  xxiv. 

8.  Jesus  appears  to  ten  disciples  (Thomas  being  absent).     John  xx. 

9.  Jesus  appears  to  eleven  disciples.     John  xx. 

10.  Jesus  appears  on  mountain  in  Galilee.     Matt,  xxviii. 

11.  Jesus  appears  to  seven  disciples  in  Galilee.     John  xxi. 
13.  Ascension.     Mark  xvi. 

"We  have  left  now  thirty-eight  events  which  may  be  called  miracles 
of  Our  Lord.  About  two  of  them  there  may  be  more  or  less  dispute, 
viz. :  (1)  The  falling  backward  of  the  band  of  men  who  came  to  ar- 
rest Jesus  in  the  garden  (John  xviii.  4);  and  (2)  the  fire  of  coals,  etc., 
noticed  by  the  disciples  on  the  shore  of  the  sea  of  Galilee,  when  Jesus 
appears  to  seven  of  them  at  that  place.  See  John  xxi.  As  to  the  re- 
maining thirty-six  we  think  there  is  no  dispute.  They  may  be  found 
classified  in  the  helps  in  the  Teachers'  Bible. 

The  following  occurred  at  Capernaum: 

1.  Healing  of  demoniac.     Mark  i. 

2.  Healing  of  Peter's  mother-in-law  and  many  others.     Matt.  viii. 

3.  Healing  of  paralytic.     Matt.  ix. 

4.  Healing  of  centurion's  servant.     Matt.  viii. 

5.  Raising  of  Jairus'  daughter.     Matt.  ix. 

6.  Healing  of  two  blind  men.     Matt.  ix. 

7.  Healing  of  the  dumb  spirit.     Matt.  ix. 

8.  Stater  in  the  fish's  mouth.     Matt.  xvii. 

9.  Healing  of  woman  with  bloody  issue.     Matt.  12:. 
In  Galilee  (place  not  certain)  occurred 

1.  Healing  of  a  leper.     Matt.  viii. 

2.  Healing  of  withered  hand.     Matt.  xii. 

3.  Healing  of  demoniac.     Matt.  xii. 

On,  or  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of,  the  sea  of  Galilee,  occurred 

1.  Miraculous  draught  of  fishes.     Luke  v. 

2.  Stilling  of  tempest.     Matt.  viii. 

3.  Feeding  of  five  thousand.     Matt.  xiv. 

4.  "Walking  on  water.     Matt.  xiv. 

5.  Draught  of  fishes.     John  xxi. 
In  Jerusalem,  or  near  it,  occurred 

1.   Healing  of  man  at  pool  of  Bethesda.     John  V. 
3.  Healing  of  a  blind  man,     John  ix  aud  x. 


APPENDIX.  643 

3.  Withering  of  fig  tree.     Matt.  xxi. 

4.  Healing  of  Malchus'  ear  (Gethsemane).     Luke  xxii. 
In  the  Decapolis  occurred 

1.  Healing  of  deaf  and  dumb  (and  many).     Mark  vii. 

2.  Feeding  of  four  thousand.     Matt.  xv. 

The  following  j^laces  witnessed  the  performance  of  one  miracle 
each: 

1.  Cana  (see  below)  —  Water  into  wine.     John  ii. 

2.  Nain  —  Son  of  widow  raised.     Luke  vii, 

3.  Gadara  —  Legion  of  devils  cast  out.     Matt.  viii. 

4.  Region  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  —  Daughter  of  woman  healed. 
Matt.  XV. 

5.  Bethsaida  Julias  —  Blind  man.     Mark  viii. 

6.  Samaria — Ten  lepers.     Luke  xvii, 

7.  Bethany  —  Raising  of  Lazarus.     John  xi. 

8.  Jericho  —  Two  blind  men.     Matt.  xx. 

1).  Nazareth  —  Miraculous  escape  of  Jesus.     Luke  iv. 
10.  Caesarea  Philippi  — Healing  of  demoniac.     Matt.  xvii. 
G  the  Persean  region  probably  occurred 

1.  Healing  of  an  infirm  woman.     Luke  xiii. 

2.  Healing  of  man  with  dropsy.     Luke  xiv. 

Cana  and  Capernaum  have  each  an  almost  equal  right  to  claim  the 
miracle  of  the  healing  of  the  nobleman's  son.  The  word  was  spoken 
at  Cana,  the  cure  took  place  at  Capernaum.     John  iv. 

If  we  give  this  to  Capernaum  it  can  claim  ten  miracles. 

If  I  mistake  not,  six  of  our  Lord's  miracles  were  performed  on  a 
Sabbath.     They  are 

1.  Healing  of  demoniac  (Mark  i.)  in  a  synagogue. 

2.  Healing  of  man  in  Jerusalem  at  Bethesda.     John  v. 

3.  Healing  of  withered  hand,  Galilee  (Matt,  xii.),  in  a  synagogue. 

4.  Healing  of  blind  man  in  Jerusalem  (John  ix.)  near  the  temple. 

5.  Healing  of  an  infirm  woman,  Peraea  (Luke  xiii.),  in  a  synagogue. 

6.  Healing  of  a  man  with  dropsy,  Peraea  (Luke  xiv.),  in  house 
of  a  Pharisee. 

There  were  apparently  only  three  miracles  performed  in  a  syna- 
gogue. 

To  the  above  we  subjoin  the  following  note  on  the  Galil.iean  mira- 
cles, prepared  by  Prof.  Barbour. 

The  fourteen  recorded  miracles  of  the  southern  Galilacan  ministry 
(period  from  John's  imprisonment  to  his  death)  would  seem,  from  the 
way  in  which  they  fall  naturally  into  pairs,  to  be  carefully  selected 
samples  from  a  much  larger  number.  The  twelve  given  by  St.  Luke 
(chs.  iv.-viii.)  thus  group  themselves. 


G44  APPENDIX. 

(a)  Two  wrought  on  nature:    Fislies  (animate),  Tempest  (inani< 
mate). 

(b)  Ten  wrought  on  man,  as  follows : 

1.  Two  demoniacs:  unclean  spirit,  legion. 

2.  Two  (chronic)  impurity :  general,  leprosy;  local,  issue. 

3.  Two  (chronic)  helplessness :  general,  palsy ;  local,  withered  hand. 

4.  Two  (acute)  severe  cases :  great  fever,  point  of  death   (inflam- 
matory rheumatism). 

5.  Two  dead :  girl  just  dead ;  the  widow's  son  about  to  be  buried. 
To  which  add  the  pair  given  by  Matthew  —  two  cases  of  organic 

defect:  blind,  dumb. 


II.    ABRIDGED  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HERODIAN  FAMILY. 

PREPARED  BV  PROF.  BARBOUR. 

HEROD    THE    GREAT  (Matt,  ii.) 
(a)    (b)    (c)    {d) 

,1 =^_J    L 


-n  I  I 

PHILIP      Aristobulus  Philip  HEROD  Antipas 

(Lukeiii)  I  (Matt,  siv)  \\  *   (Luke  iii,  etc.)  (Matt,  ii) 

I  I 

HEROD  Agrippa  I.  Herodias 

(Acts  xii)  (Matt,  xiv) 

AGRIPPA  II.  Salome 

(Acts  XXV)  (Matt,  xiv) 

r  (a)  Cleopatra. 

Four  of  the  wives  of  Herod  J  {b)  Mariamne,  granddau.  of  Hyrcanus. 

the  Great                    j  (c)  Mariamne,  dau.  of  Simon. 

[  {(l)  Malthace. 
Rulers  in  CAPITALS. 


III.  The  book,  "Gospel  Difficulties,  or  the  Displaced  Section  of 
St.  Luke,"  by  J.  J.  Halcombe,  London,  1886,  has  not  been  referred  to 
because  it  seems  incredible  that  such  a  displacement  could  have  taken 
place,  and  yet  no  hint  of  it  be  found  in  any  ancient  mantiscript  or 
author.     But  in  many  respects  the  book  is  worthy  of  an  examination. 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


Abia,  course  of,  13, 14. 

Aceldama,  525,  526. 

Adulteress  brought  before  Jesus,  345, 
346. 

.^non,  site  of,  173-175. 

Alphaeus,  114,  115. 

Andrew  visits  Jesus,  158-160. 

Angels,  appearance  of,  at  sepulchre,  599, 
600. 

Annas,  office  of,  142-144;  Jesus  taken  be- 
fore, 505-510. 

Annunciation  to  Zacharias,  53;  to  Mary, 
55-57. 

Anointing  of  Jesus,  by  a  woman  a  sinner, 
281-286;  by  Mary,  422. 

Antonia,  tower  of,  530. 

Apostles,  early  relations  of,  to  Jesus,  245, 
246;  choice  of.  265,  268;  sending  of,  307- 
313  ;  return  of,  to  Jesus,  321  ;  disputes 
among,  361, 362;  strife  among,  at  paschal 
supper,  481,  483. 

Appearances  of  Jesus  after  the  resurrec- 
tion, different  arrangements  of,  596-610. 

Archelaus,  143,  143. 

Ascension,  place  and  time  of,  630-637. 

Augustus,  emperor,  census  under,  2,  3; 
closes  the  temple  of  Janus,  11,  12;  tax- 
ing by,  71-81. 

Barabbas,  535,  536. 

Bethabara,  site  of,  146-151 ;  Jesus  returns 
thither,  401. 

Bethany  visited  by  Jesus,  397;  site  of,  406, 
407;  Jesus  lodges  at,  423  ;  feast  at,  422; 
Jesus  ascends  from,  630-6.33. 

Bethesda,  pool  of,  198-201. 

Bethlehem,  position  of,  82;  cave  of,  83-87. 

Bethphage,  site  of,  429-433. 

Bethsaida,  site  of,  230-233;  the  feeding  of 
5,000  there,  320-322. 

Blasphemy,  Jesus  charged  with,  505-514. 

Blood  and  water,  flowiiig  of,  566-569. 

Brethren,  the  Lord's,  111-123;  did  not  be- 
lieve on  Him,  341-343. 

Caesarea  Philippi,  visited  by  Jesus,  351. 
Caiaphas,  high  priest,  137-142;  council  at 

palace  of,  505^10;  Jesus  examined  by, 

505. 
Cana  of  Galilee,  wedding  at,  160;  site  of, 

162-164. 
Capernaum,  why  selected  by  Jesus,  239; 

site  of,  221-2.39. 
Chorazin,  site  of,  2.3'7,  238. 
Christmas,  wheu  first  observed,  17-19. 
Chronology,  patristic,  41,  48-50. 
Circuits  in  Galilee,   arrangement  of,  24;i, 

244;  duration  of,  210. 
Cleopas,  614. 
Cock-crowing,  520,  521. 


Corn,  plucking  ears  of,  255,  259. 

Crucifixion,  time  of,  544-548;  place  of,  544, 
576-586;  mode  of,  550-552. 

Cyrenius,  governor  of  Syria,  when,  4;  tax- 
ing under,  77-79. 

Dalmanutha,  site  of,  338. 

Daniel,  week  of,  41,  42. 

Darkness  at  the  crucifixion,  557,  558. 

David,  decay  of  his  family,  66. 

Decapolis  visited  by  Jesus,  332-335. 

Dedication,  feast  of,  397,  398. 

Divisions  of  our  Lord's  Ministry,  125-137. 

Dream,  Pilate's  wife's,  536. 

Earthciuake  at  crucifixion,  561;  at  resur- 
rection, 575. 

Egypt,  Jesus  in,  98-100. 

Elias,  forerunner  of  Messiah,  359,  360. 

Emmaus,  site  of,  617-619. 

Ephraim,  site  of,  409,  410;  Jesus  sojourns 
at,  410,  411. 

Epiphany,  feast  of,  30-.32;  when  kept,  89. 

Eras,  Roman  and  Christian,  1. 

Gadara.    See  Gergesa. 

Galilee,  213;   sea  of,  221,  222;  shores  fitted 

for  teaching,  253;  storms  on,  294. 326-.328; 

Jesus  meets  the  seven  disciples  there,  625; 

mount  of,  629. 
Genealogies  of  Jesus,  58-65. 
Gennesaret,  position  of,  223-2.39. 
Gerasa.    See  Gergesa. 
Gergesa,  site  of,  296-300 ;    demoniacs  of, 

300-302. 
Gethsemane,  garden  of,  497-500;  the  Lord's 

agony  in,  501,  502. 
Golgotha,  575-588. 
Greeks'  desire  to  see  Jesus,  443,  444. 

Har^'est,  time  of,  182,  183. 

Herod  the  Great,  time  of  his  death,  1; 
character  of,  101. 

Herod  Antipas,  149.  143;  hears  of  Jesus, 
313  ;  imprisons  John,  .314  ;  celebrates 
birthday,  315;  threatens  to  kill  Jesus, 
395;  Jesus  sent  to  by  Pilate,  533,  534. 

Herodians,  who,  261. 

Herodias,  314. 

Innocents,  murder  of,  11, 100,  101. 

Jacob,  well  of,  184,  18.5. 

James  the  Apostle,  1.59,  248. 

James,  son  of  Alpheus,  111-117. 

Jericho,  visited  bv  Jesus,  416. 

Jews,  term  as  used  bv  John,  469,  470. 

John  the  Apostle,  first  visit  of,  to  Jesus, 
1.54,  158;  cull  of,  245-347;  ambition  of, 
414-416;  at  paschal  supper,  481,  487,  488; 

( (:45 ) 


646 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


at  the  cross,  555-557;  at  the  sepulchre, 
596.  608.  611. 
•John  tiie  Baptist,  time  of  birth,  13;  time  of 
beginning  his  ministry,  22,  23;  age  of, 
when  he  began  to  preach,  29.  30;  oirth- 

?lace,  54,  55;  place  of  baptizing,  146- 
51;  testimony  to  Jesus,  154^157;  bap- 
tizes at  ^non,  173-175;  relations  of  his 
Isaptism  to  that  of  Christ,  176,  177;  im- 
prisonment of,  215-217;  message  to  Je- 
sus, 276,  279,  280;  death  of,  307,  313. 

Jordan,  lloods  in,  33,  34. 

Joseph,  his  lineage,  55,  56;  prior  marriage 
of,  112,  118. 

Josepli  of  Arimathea,  receives  the  Lord's 
body,  563,  570,  571. 

Juda,  city  of,  54,  55. 

Judas  offended  at  Christ's  words,  422,  427; 
bargaining  with  the  priests,447;  at  paschal 
supper,  481^88;  whether  present  at  the 
Lord's  supper,  491-493;  leads  the  soldiers 
to  arrest  Jesus,  503,  504 ;  returns  the 
thirty  pieces  of  silver,  524, 526;  his  death, 
526,  527;  his  motives,  528. 

Judn'a,  the  Lord's  work  in,  167-169. 

Kidron,  497. 

Lazarus,  death  of,  404,  405;  sepulchre  of, 

407. 
Levi,  call  of,  252-255;   feast  of,  255,  302- 

305. 
Lord's   supper,  institution    of,    482,  488- 

491. 
Lysanias,  tetrarch  of  Abilene,  137-140. 

Machserus,  315. 

Magdala,  337,  338. 

Magi,  star  of,  9-11,  89,  90;  country  of,  9.3- 
95. 

Malefactors,  two  crucified  with  Jesus, 
554;  one  repents,  556;  death  of,  564. 

Martha,  sister  of  Lazarus,  -397,  398;  serves 
at  the  table,  426. 

Mary  Magdalene,  her  character,  285,  286; 
visits  the  sepulchre,  596-612;  Jesus  ap- 
pears first  to,  603-604. 

Mary,  mother  of  Jesus,  parentage  of,  56; 
of  the  house  of  David,  58-65;  is  visited  by 
Gabriel,  55;  visits  Elizabeth,  68,  69;  at 
the  Passover,  108-110;  at  Caua,  160- 
162;  supposed  residence  at  Capernaum, 
239, 240;  visits  her  son  with  His  brethren, 
286-290;  is  commended  to  the  care  of 
John,  555,  557. 

Mary,  wifeof  Alphicus,  who,  11-3, 114;  sons 
of,  112-118. 

Mary,  sister  of  Lazarus,  is  commended  by 
Jesus,  397;  anoints  the  Lord,  422. 

Matthew.     See  Levi. 

Ministry,  the  Lord's  divisions  of,  125-137; 
in  Jud;ea,  167-207;  in  Galilee,  209-363; 
general  features  of,  in  Galilee,  134, 135, 
209-212;  later  work  in  Galilee,  317- 
363. 

Miracles,  of  healing:  —  Healing  of  noble- 
man's son,  178;  of  impotent  man,  189; 
of  the  possessed  in  the  synagogue,  245; 
of  Simon's  wife's  mother.  245;  of  the 
leper,  250;  of  the  paralytic,  2.j2;  of  the 
man  with  a  withered  hand,  2.55;  of  the 
centurion's  servant,  274;  of  bhnd  and 
dumb  possessed,  286;  of  the  Gergescne 
demoniacs.  295;  of  woman  with  issue  of 
blood,  302;  of  two  blind  men,  306;  of  a 


dumb  person  possessed,  306 ;  of  tha 
daughter  of  a  Phenician  woman,  3.32;  of 
man  wilh  an  impediment  in  speech,  :B32; 
of  blind  man  at  Bethsaida,  339;  of  lunatic 
child,  .3.59;  of  man  blind  from  birth,  346; 
of  dumb  possessed,  390;  of  sick  woman 
in  the  synagogue,  .393;  of  a  man  with 
dropsy,  402;  of  the  ten  lepers,  410;  of 
the  blind  men  at  Jericho,  416;  of  MaU 
chus'  ear,  503. 

,  other  kinds  of: — Changing  water 

into  wine,  160;  escapes  the  wrath  of  the 
Nazarenes,  215;  first  draught  of  tislies, 
245;  raising  of  the  widow's  son,  276; 
stilling  of  the  tempest,  291;  raising  of 
daughter  of  Jairus,  302;  feeding  of  the 
5,000,  320;  walking  on  the  sea,  321; 
feeding  of  the  4,000,  332;  money  in  fish's 
mouth,  361;  raising  of  Lazarus,  404; 
withering  of  fig  tree,  436;  second  draught 
of  fishes,  625. 

■  in  general :  —  Wrought  at  Jerusa- 


lem, at  Passover,  169  ;  at  Capernaum, 
252;  by  the  seashore,  265;  before  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  270;  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Nazareth,  309;  in  the  land  of 
Gennesaret,  329;  on  east  side  of  sea  of 
Galilee,  332;  in  the  temple,  436. 

of  the  apostles,  312. 

of  the  Seventy,  385. 


Nain,  site  of,  277. 

Nathaniel,  160. 

Nativity,   cave  of.  83-86. 

Nazareth,  name  of,  104,  105;  position  of, 

105-107. 
Nicodemus  visits  Jesus,  169-171;   defends 

Jesus,  345;  embalms  His  body,  571. 

Olives,  Mount  of,  429;  path  over  from 
Bethany,  4.30;  discourse  upon,  445,  446; 
distance  from  Jerusalem,  609,  n. ;  ascen- 
sion from,  630-633. 

Palestine,  seasons  of,  14-17;  climate  of, 
32-.34. 

Parables,  those  spoken  by  the  eea-side, 
291-294;  beginning  of  teaching  in,  293; 
of  the  unmmercif ul  servant,  361 ;  of  the 
good  Samaritan,  389;  of  the  rich  fool, 
390;  of  fig  tree,  393;  of  great  supper,  393; 
of  lost  sheep,  lost  piece  of  silver,  prodi- 
gal son.  unrighteous  steward,  of  the  rich 
man  and  Lazarfts,  402;  of  unjust  judge, 
of  Pharisee  and  publican,  410;  of  the 
pounds,  410;  of  the  two  sons,  the  wicked 
husbandmen,  the  king's  son,  438;  of  the 
foolish  virgins,  the  talents,  449. 

Paschal  supper,  whether  eaten  by  Jesus, 
452-457;  order  of,  457-460. 

Passovers,  number  of,  in  Jesus'  ministry, 
35,  50,  51;  Jesus'  first  attendance  at, 
108,  first  of  in  His  ministry,  109;  ques- 
tion of,  second,  189-198;  nearness  of,  at 
feeding  the  5,000»331;  numbers  present 
;it.  41j'.  ■^;.  last  oT  Jesus'  ministry,  450; 
pr<'^)3rauon  for,  451.  452. 

Persa,  Jesus'  last  jouniey  through,  365; 
visited  by  the  Seventy,  380-385. 

Peter,  Simon,  first  meets  Jesus,  154,  159; 
house  of,  2:i9,  245;  call  of,  245-218; 
preference  shown  to,  with  James  and 
John,  306;  attempt  to  walk  on  the  water, 
321,  328;  first  confession  of,  332;  second 
confession  of,  351-355;  denials  foretold. 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


647 


494-496;  thrice  denies  the  Lord,  493,  505, 
516-521;  visits  the  sepulchre  with  John, 
596,  611,  612;  sees  the  Lord  in  Jerusalem, 
620;  at  the  lalie  of  Tiberias,  625. 

Pharisees,  deputation  of,  to  John,  154-159; 
demand  a  sign  of  Jesus,  170 ;  hinder 
baptism  by  Jesus,  188;  hostility  to  Jesus, 
255,  261,  262 ;  blasphemy  of,  28T ; 
demand  a  sign,  339,  340;  send  officers 
to  arrest  Jesus,  341,  344,  345;  demand 
His  authority,  438,  439;  attempt  to  en- 
trap Him,  438,  440;  hypocrisy  of,  re- 
buked, 438,  442. 

Pilate,  Pontius,  administration  of,  143 ; 
Jesus  brought  before  him,  528-544;  at- 
tempts to  release  Jesus,  534-541 ;  acts  of, 
543. 

Prisoner,  release  of,  at  Passover,  534-536. 

Pr^toriiun,  site  of,  530,  531. 

Punishment,  capital,  power  to  inflict,  when 
talien  from  the  Jews,  40,  41. 

Purim,  feast  of,  192-196 

Resurrection  of  saints  at  the  crucifixion, 
555,  5ei,  562;  of  Jesus,  hour  of,  601. 

Sabbath,    second-first,    255-2.59 ;      strictly 

liept  by  the  Jews,  260;  feasts  upon,  425. 
Sabbaths,  certain  feast  days  so  regarded, 

455. 
Sabbatic  year,  John's  ministry  in,  145. 
Sadducees,   unite  with  Pharisees   against 

Jesus,  .339,  340. 
Salome,  mother  of  James  and  John,  416. 
Samaritans,  receive  Jesus.   178,  186;  reject 

Him,  38),  386. 
Sanhedrin,  J<;sus  before,  202,  203;   sends 

officers    to   arrest    Him,  341,  344,  345; 

takes  counsel  to  put  Him  to  death,  404, 

407-409;    powers    of,    510,    511;   second 

session  of,  521-524. 
Saturninus,  governor  of  Syria,  3. 
Scourging  of  Jesus,  529,  .538.540. 
Scribes,  deputation    of,   from  Jerusalem, 

290;  second  deputation,  3;32,  333. 
Sepulchre,   the    Lord's,   site  of,    575-588; 

sealing  of,  573,  574. 


Sermon  on  the  Mount,  248,  265,  269-274. 
Seventy,  the,  sending  of,  and  when  and 

where  sent,  380-385. 
Shepherds  at  Bethlehem,  14-16,  87-89. 
Sidon.    See  Tyre. 
Siloam,  pool  of,  348. 
Simon  of  Cyrene,  548,  549. 
Soldiers,  Roman,  aid  to  arrest  Jesus,  501; 

bribery  of,  612,  G13. 
Son  of  God,  term  how  used,  515,  516. 
Star  of  the  East,  6-10,  93,  95,  96. 
Sun,  darkening  of,  40,  555,  557-559. 
Sweat,  bloody,  497,  502. 

Tabernacles,   feast  of,   197;    attended  by 

Jesus,  341-345;  order  of  events  at,  346, 

347. 
Taxing,  the,  when  made,  2-4. 
Temple,  rebuilt  by  Herod,  56;  first  pnrifi 

cation  of,    169,   170;    tax  of,    361-363; 

second  purification  of,  409,  436,  437;  veil 

of,  .555,  561. 
Temptation,  place  of,  155. 
Thomas,  unbelief  of,  023-62,5. 
Tiberius,  colleagueship  with  Augustus,  26- 

29. 
Transfiguration  of  Christ,  351-359. 
Trial  of  Jesus,  of  what  accused,  510-516: 

not  impartial,  512,  513. 
Tyre,  332-335. 

Unnamed  Feast,  189-198. 

Varus,  governor  of  Syria,  3,  4. 
Via  Dolorosa,  549,  550. 

Washing  of  disciples'  feet  by  Jesus,  481- 
484;  of  Pilate's  hands,  529,  541. 

Women  of  Galilee  attending  Jesus,  281; 
visit  to  sepulchre  of,  596-614. 

Zaccheus,  416,  420. 

Zacharias,  not  high  priest,  53;   home  of, 

54,55. 
Zacharias,  son  of  Barachias,  442,  443. 


CHRON-OLOOICAL  IKDEX. 


Annnnciation  to  Zacharias, 

Elizabeth  conceives  a  son,  and  lives  in  retirement, 
Annunciation  to  Mary, 

Mary  visits  Elizabeth  and  remains  three  months, 
Birth  of  John  the  Baptist,     .... 
Joseph  and  Mary  go  to  Bethlehem  to  be  taxed, 

Jesus  born  at  Bethlehem 

The  angel  and  the  shepherds, 

Circumcision  of  Jesus, 

Presentation  of  Jesus, 

Coming  of  the  Magi, 

Flight  of  Jeeus  into  Egj'pt,  .... 
Return  to  Nazareth,  and  sojourn  there, 
Jesus,  at  twelve  years  of  age,  attends  the  Pasaover, 
~John  the  Baptist  begins  his  labors, 
Baptism  of  Jesus,  .... 
Jesus  tempted  in  the  wilderness, 


Oct., 
Oct.-March, 

April, 
April-June, 
June, 
Dec, 
Dec, 
Dec, 
Jan., 
Feb., 
Feb., 
Feb., 
May, 

April, 
Summer, 
Jan., 
Jan. -Feb., 
Feb., 
Feb., 
Feb., 

April, 
May, 
Dec, 


Jan.-AprU, 


.    March, 

April, 

April-May, 


6  b.  c. 

6-5  " 

5  " 

5  " 

5  " 

5  " 

5  " 

5  " 

4  " 

4  " 

4  " 

4  " 

4  " 
8  a.  d. 

26  " 

27  " 
27  " 
27  " 
27  " 
27  " 
27  " 
27  " 
27  " 


Deputation  of  Priests  and  Levites  to  the  Baptist, 

Jesus  returns  to  Galilee,        .... 

Wedding  at  Cana  of  Galilee, 

First  Passover  of  Jesus'  ministry;  cleansing  of  temple, 

Jesus  begins  to  baptize,         .... 

Jesus  departs  into  Galilee,  through  Samaria, 

Healing  nobleman's  son  at  Capernaum, 

A  few  weeks  spent  by  Jesus  in  retirement,  . 

Second  visit  at  Cana, 

The  Baptist  imprisoned,        .... 

Unnamed  Feast;  healing  of  impotent  man, 

Jesus  begins  His  ministry  in  Galilee,   . 

First  visit  to  Nazareth;  makes  abode  in  Capernaum, 

Calling  of  the  four  disciples,  and  healings  at  Capernaum,     April-May, 

First  circuit  in  Galilee:  healing  of  the  leper,      ....       May, 

Eeturn  to  Capernaum,  and  healing  of  the  paralytic;  calling  of 

Levi, Summer, 

Plucking  the  corn,  and  healing  the  man  with  withered  hand,  Summer, 
Choice  of  apostles,  and  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  .  .  .  Summer, 
Healing  of  centurion's  servant  at  Capernaum,  .  .  .  Summer, 
Journey  to  Nain,  and  raising  of  the  widow's  son,     .        .         Summer, 

Message  to  Jesus  of  the  Baptist, Summer, 

Jesus  anointed  by  the  woman;  a  sinner,  ....  Autumn, 
Healing  at  Capernaum  of  the  blind  and  dumb  possessed;  charge 

of  the  Pharisees  that  he  casts  out  devils  by  Beelzebub,  Autumn, 
Teaching  in  parables,  and  stilling  of  the  tempest,  .  .  Autumn, 
Healing  of  demoniacs  in  Gergesa,  and  return  to  Capernaum,  Autumn, 
Matthew's  feast;  healing  of  woman  with  issue  of  blood,  and 

raising  pf  Jairus'  daughter, Autumn,      28 

Healing  of  two  blind  men,  and  a  dumb  possessed;  Pharisees 

blaspheme, Autumn, 

Second  visit  to  Nazareth;  sending  of  the  Twelve,      .        .        .  Winter, 
Death  of  Baptist;  Jesus  returns  to  Capernaum,         .        .        .   Winter, 
Crossing  of  the  sea,  and  feeding  of  the  5,000;  return  to  Ca- 
pernaum,   Sprino;, 

Discourse  at  Capernaum  respecting  the  bread  of  lifgL^  _  j_       .      April, 
"Jesus  visits  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon;  heals  the  daiigEter  of 
Syro-Phojnician  woman;  visits  the  region  of  Decapolis;  heals 
one  with  an  impediment  in  his  speech;  feeds  the  4,000,       Summer, 
Jesus  returns  to  Capernaum;  is  tempted  by  the  Pharisees;  re- 
proves their  hypocrisy;  again  crosses  the  sea;  heals  blind 

man  at  Bethsaida Summer, 

Goes  to  Jerusalem  to  Feast  of  Tabernacles,        .... 

He  teaches  in  the  temple;  efforts  to  arrest  Him,  .        .        .        Oct., 

An  adulteress  is  brought  before  Him;  attempt  to  stone  Him; 

healing  of  a  man  blind  from  birth;  return  to  Galilee,  .  Oct., 
Peter's  confession  that  He  is  the  Christ;  He  announces  His 

approaching  death  and  resurrection ;  the  transfiguration.    Autumn, 


28 


28 
28 
28 
23 
28 
28 
28 

28 
28 
28 


28 
29 
29 

29 
29 


53 
54 
55 
68 
70 
71 
82 
87 


9.3 

98 
103 
108 
128 
137 
154 
154 
154 
160 
169 
169 
178 
178 
178 
187 
189 


29    " 

29  " 
29  " 
29  " 
29  " 
(648) 


215  ^ 
215 
245  X 
250 

252  ^ 

255 

265 
274 
276 
276 
281 

286 
291 
295 


306 

307  y 

307 

320 

329  __ 


332 

339 
341 
341 

345  f 

351 


PAGE. 

29  a.  D. 

360 

39  " 
29  " 
29  " 
29  " 

361 
379 
385 
385 

CHRONOLOGICAL  INDEX.  649 


^ealinK  of  lunatic  child, Autumn, 

Jesus  journeys  through  Galilee,  teaching  the  disciples;  at  Caper- 
naum pays  the  tribute  money, Autumn, 

Final  departure  from  Galilee, Nov., 

Is  rejected  at  Samaria, Nov., 

Sending  of  the  Seventy,  whom  he  follows,  ....      Nov., 

Jesus  is  attended  by  great  multitudes;  parable  of  the  good  Samari- 
tan; He  gives  a  form  of  prayer, Nov.,      29    "  389 

Healing  of  a  dumb  possessed  man;  renewed  blasphemy  of  the 
Pharisees;  dining  with  a  Pharisee;  Jesus  rebukes  hypocrisy; 
parable  of  the  rich  fool, Nov.-Dec,      29    "  390 

Jesus  is  told  of  the  murder  of  the  Galileans  by  Pilate;  parable  of 
the  fig  tree;  healing  of  a  woman  18  years  sick;  is  warned 
against  Herod, Nov.-Dec,      29    "  393 

Feast  of  Dedication;  visit  to  Mary  and  Martha;  the  Jews  at  Jeru- 
salem attempt  to  stone  Him;  He  goes  beyond  Jordan,        .       Dec,      29    "  397 

Jesus  dines  with  a  Pharisee,  and  heals  a  man  with  dropsy;  para- 
bles of  the  great  supper,  of  the  lost  sheep,  of  the  lost  piece  of 
silver,  of  the  unjust  steward,  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,      Dec,      29    "  402 

Resurrection  of  Lazarus;  counsel  of  the  Jews  to  put  Him  to  death; 

He  retires  to  Ephraim, Jan.-Feb.,      30    "  404 

Sojourn  in  Ephraim  till  Passover  at  hand;  journeys  on  the  border 
of  Samaria  and  Galilee;  healing  of  ten  lepers;  parables  of  the 
unjust  judge,  and  of  Pharisee  and  publican;  teaching  respect- 
ing divorce;  blessing  of  children;  the  young  ruler,  and  parable 
of  laborers  in  the  vineyard, Feb.-March,      30    "  410 

Jesus  again  aTiTTOTmces  His  death;  ambition  of  James  and  John,  March,      30    "  414)' 

Healing  of  blind  men  at  Jericho;  Zaccheus;  parable  of  the  pounds; 

departure  to  Bethany, March,      .30    "  416 

Supper  at  Bethany,  and  anointing  of  Jesus  by  Mary,  Sat.,  April  1,      30    "  423 

Entry  into  Jerusalem;  visit  to  the  temple,  and  return  to  Bethany, 

Sund.,  April  2,      30    "  429 

Cursing  of  the  fig  tree;   second  purification  of  the  temple;   return 

to  Bethany, Mond.,  April  3,      30    "  436 

Teaching  in  the  temple;  parables  of  the  two  sons,  of  the  wicked 
husbandmen,  of  the  king's  son,  attempts  of  His  enemies  to 
entangle  Him;  the  poor  widow;  the  Greeks  who  desire  to  see 
Him;  a  voice  heard  from  Heaven;  departure  from  the  temple 
to  the  Mount  of  Olives;  discourse  respecting  the  end  of  the 
world;  return  to  Bethany;  agreement  of  Judas  with  the  priests 
to  betray  Him, Tues.,  April  4,      30    "  438 

Jesus  seeks  retirement  at  Bethany,       ,    -  •.       ,.        ■        Wed. ,  April  5.      30    "  450 

Sending  of  Peter  and  JoTin  to  prepare  the  Passover;   the  paschal"""         ' —- »— ^  - 

supper, Thurs.,  April  6, 

Events  at  paschal  supper, Thurs.  eve.,  April  6, 

After  supper  Jesus  foretells  the  denials  of  Peter;  speaks  of  the 
coming  of  the  Comforter,  and  ends  with  prayer, 

Thurs.  eve.,  April  6, 

Jesus  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane,    .        .        .      Thurs.  eve.,  April  6, 

Jesus  is  given  into  the  hands  of  Judas,  Thurs.,  midnight,  April  6, 

Jesus  is  led  to  the  house  of  Annas,  and  thence  to  palace  of  Caiaphas ; 

is  condemned  for  blasphemy,         .        .     Friday,  1-5  a.  m.,  April  7,      30    "  505 

Mockeries  of  His  enemies;  He  is  brought  the  second  time  before 
the  council,  and  thence  taken  before  Pilate, 

Friday,  5-6  a.  m.,  April  7,      30    "  521 

Charge  of  sedition;  Pilate  finds  no  fault  with  Him.  and  attempts 
to  release  Him,  but  is  forced  to  scourge  Him,  and  give  Him  up 
to  be  crucified, Friday,  6-9  a.  m.,  April  7,      30    "  528 

Jesus  is  crucified  at  Golgotha,       .        .        .  Friday,  9-12  a.  m.,  April  7,      30    "  544 

Upon  the  cross  is  reviled  by  His  enemies;  commends  His  mother 
to  John;  darkness  covers  the  land;  He  dies;  the  earth  shakes 
and  rocks  are  rent,  .        .        .        Friday,  12  a.  M.-3  p.  m.,  April  7,      .30    "  555 

His  body  taken  down  and  given  to  Joseph,  and  laid  in  his  sepulchre, 

Friday,  3-6  p.  m.,  April  7,      30    "  563 

Resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene, 

Sunday  a.  m.,  April  9,      30    "  596 

Appearance  to  the  two  disciples  at  Emmaus;  to  Peter  and  to  the 

Eleven  at  Jerusalem, Sitnday  p.  m.,  April  9,      .30    "  614 

Appearance  to  the  apostles  and  Thomas,    .        .        .  Sunday,  April  16,      30    "  623 

Appearance  to  seven  disciples  at  sea  of  Tiberias,  and  to  500  at 

mountain  in  Galilee, April-May,      30    "  625 

Final  appearance  to  the  disciples  at  Jerusalem,  and  ascension  to 

heaven, Thursday,  May  18,      30    "  630 


30  " 

30  " 

450' 
481 

30  " 
30  " 
30  " 

491 
497 
503 

PASSAGES  OF  SCEIPTURE  REFERRED  TO  IN  THE  HISTORY. 


MATTHEW. 

xxvi. 

6—13. . . 

422 

xi. 

XXVI. 

14—16... 

4:38 

XI. 

1. 

1-17 

.      56 

XXVI. 

17—19... 

450 

XII. 

1. 

20        

..    55 

XXVI. 

20 

4,51 

XUl. 

i. 

lS-2.5 

..     70 

XXVI. 

21-24... 

481 

XIV. 

11. 

1—13 

..     93 

XXVI. 

25-29... 

482 

XIV. 

ii. 

13—23 

..    98 

XXVI. 

30-46... 

497 

XIV. 

111. 

1-17 

..  137 

XXVI. 

47—56... 

503 

XIV. 

IV. 

1-11 

..  1,54 

XXVI. 

57-66... 

505 

XIV. 

iv. 

12        

..  189 

XXVI. 

67,   68... 

521 

XIV. 

IV. 

13-ir 

..  215 

xx^l. 

69—75... 

505 

XIV. 

IV. 

18-22  

..  245 

XXVII. 

1-10... 

521 

XIV. 

IV. 

23        

. .  240 

SXVll. 

11 

528 

XIV. 

IV. 

25        

..  265 

XXVII. 

12-30... 

529 

XIV. 

v.,  vi.,  vii.            

..  265 

XXVU. 

31-38... 

544 

XIV. 

VIll. 

2-4 

. .  2.i0 

XXVU. 

39—56... 

555 

XIV. 

Vlll. 

5—13 

..  274 

XXVU. 

57-66... 

563 

XV. 

VUl. 

14— ir 

..  215 

XXVUl. 

1-15... 

596 

XV. 

VUl. 

18—27 

..  291 

XXVIII. 

16-20. . . 

625 

XV. 

Vlll. 

28—34 

..  2E5 

XV. 

IX. 

1         

..  295 

XV. 

IX. 

3—9 

..  252 

MARK. 

XV. 

ix. 

10-26 

..  302 

XVI. 

ix. 

27—34 

..  306 

1. 

4—11... 

137 

XVI. 

IX. 

35—38 

. .  307 

1. 

12,   13... 

154 

XVI. 

X. 

1^12 

..  307 

1. 

14 

189 

XVI. 

xi. 

1—19 

..  276 

I. 

14,   15... 

215 

XI. 

20—30 

..  280 

1. 

16-34... 

245 

xii. 

1-14 

..  255 

35—39... 

249 

xii. 

15—21 

..  265 

1. 

40—45... 

250 

xu. 

22—50 

..  286 

II. 

1-14... 

258 

1. 

Xlll. 

1—52 

..  291 

ii. 

15—22... 

302 

I. 

53 58 

307 

II. 
iii. 
iii. 
iii. 

23—28... 

1—6... 

7—19... 
20—21 . . . 

J56 

255 

265 

274 

1. 

xiv 

1     12 

307 

i. 

l;}— 21 

.  320 

xiv. 

22-34 

..  321 

ii. 

xiv. 

34—36 

..  329 

111. 

22-35... 

286 

II. 

1—39 

..  382 

IV. 
V. 

1-41... 
1-20... 

291 

295 

11. 

xvi. 

1-12 

..  339 

ii. 

XVI. 

13—28 

..  3,51 

V. 

21-43... 

302 

u. 

xvii. 

1—9 

..  351 

vi. 

1-30... 

307 

ii. 

XVll. 

10—21 

..  3,59 

vi. 

31—44... 

320 

111. 

xvu. 

•'2—23 

360 

45    53 

321 

iii. 

21    27 

.361 

vi. 
vii. 

53—56... 
1—37... 

....    329 
332 

iv. 

xviii. 

1-35 

..  361 

iv. 

SIX. 

1         

..  385 

VIU. 

1-10... 

332 

IV. 

XIX. 

2        

..  389 

VUl. 

11—26... 

339 

IV. 

XIX. 

3-30 

..  410 

VIU. 

27—38... 

....  351 

IV. 

XX. 

1-16 

..  410 

IX. 

1-10.. 

354 

V. 

XX. 

17—28 

..  414 

ix. 

11—29... 

359 

V. 

XX. 

29-34 

..  416 

IX. 

30—32. . 

360 

V. 

XXI. 

1-11 

..  429 

IX. 

33-50.. 

361 

V. 

12—19 

..  4.36 

X. 
X. 

1 
2-31.. 

..385,389 
410 

VI. 

xxi. 

20-^6 

..  4.38 

vi. 

xsu. 

1—46 

..  438 

X. 

32-45.. 

414 

vu. 

XXlll.,  XXIV.,  XXV 

..  4« 

X. 

46—52.. 

416 

\ii. 

XXVI. 

1-5 

..  438 

xi, 

1-11.. 

429 

vii. 

12—19 436 

20—33 438 

1—44 4.38 

1-37 438 

1—2 438 

3—9 422 

10,   11 4.38 

12-16 450 

17        451 

18-21 481 

22-25 482 

26-42 497 

43-52 503 

53—64 505 

65        521 

66—72 505 

1         521 

2        528 

3—19 529 

20—28 544 

29—41 555 

42-47 563 

1-11 596 

12—14 614 

15—18 625 

19,   20 630 


LUKE. 

5—22 53 

23—25 54 

26—38 55 

39-56 68 

57-80 70 

1-5! 71 

6—7 82 

8—20 87 

21-38 89 

39-40 98 

41-52 108 

1—22 137 

23-38 .58 

1—13 154 

14        189 

14—31 215 

31—41 245 

42^14 249 

1-11 245 

12—16 250 

17—28 252 

29—39 302 

1-11 255 

12—49 265 

1—10 274 

11—35 276 

36—50 281 

(650) 


PASSAGES   OP   SCRIPTURE. 


651 


vui. 
viii. 
viii. 
viii. 
viii. 
viii. 

ix. 

ix. 

Lx. 

ix. 


XI. 

xi. 
xii. 
xii. 
xiii. 
xiv. 

XV. 

xvi. 
xvii. 
xvii. 
xviii. 
xviii. 
xviii. 

xlx. 

xix. 

xix. 

XX. 

xxl. 
xxii. 
xxii. 


1-3 281 

4—18 291 

19—21 286 

22-25 291 

26-39 295 

40—66 .302 

1—9 307 

10—17 320 

18—36 351 

37^2 359 

43-45 360 

46-50 .361 

51—56 385 

57—60 291 

61—62 385 

1—24 385 

25—37 389 

38—42 397 

1—13 389 

14--54 390 

1—53 390 

54-59 391 

1—35 393 

1—35 402 

1—32 402 

1—31 402 

1—10 402 

11— ,37 410 

1-30 410 

31— ;34 414 

35-43 416 

1-28 416 

29—44 429 

45-48 436 

1—47 438 

1—36 4.38 

1—6 438 

7—13 450 


XXII. 

xxii. 
xxii. 
xxii. 
xxii. 
xxii. 
xxii. 
xxii. 
xxii. 
xxiii. 
xxiii. 
xxiii. 
xxiii. 
xxiii. 
xxiii. 
xxiv. 
xxiv. 
xxiv. 


14        451 

15-18 481 

19,  20 482 

21—30 481 

31—38 494 

39—46 497 

47-53 503 

54—62 505 

63—71 521 

1         521 

2—4 528 

5-25 529 

26—34 ,544 

35--49 555 

50-56 563 

1—12,  24 596 

13—18 614 

49—53 630 


JOHN. 

19-51 154 

32—34 137 

1—13 160 

14-25 169 

1—22 169 

2;5,   24 173 

2,5— .36 178 

1-54 178 

2        169 

1         178 

1—47 189 

1—4 320 

5—21 321 

22—71 329 

2—10 339,341 

11—53 341 


Vlll. 

viii. 


Xll. 

xii. 

xii. 

xii. 

xiii. 

xiii. 
xiv.,  XV. 
xviii. 
xviii. 
xviii. 
xviii. 
xviii. 

XLX. 

xix. 
xix. 
xix. 

XX. 
XX. 
XX. 

xxi. 


1-11 345 

12— .59 346 

1-41 340 

1—21 346 

22^12 397 

1—54 404 

54—57 410 

1-9 422 

10—11 423 

12—19 429 

20-36 4.38 

1— .35 4H1 

.36-38 494 

xvi.,  xvii 494 

1—3 497 

3—12 503 

13-27 5li5 

28—38 528 

39—40 .529 

1—16 529 

16—^ 544 

25—30 5.55 

31^12 563 

1—18 596 

19—23 614 

24-29 623 

1—23 625 


ACTS. 


1-12. 

18,   19. 


1  COEINTHIANS. 


630 
521 


614 

625 


i6. 


FACULl  Y 
,0  3  1  •« 


■*?> 


'-'-  2  ?  ^^ 


;\p  2  B  '4c 


W^ 


m   liar 


.ftr:^ 


••>*'.    *' 


